#marie95disneygirl

[bellaaldamas]

Ok, since you seem to hate the Tangled series almost as much as I do (although I still think I'm hater number one of this stupid show), I have to ask, are you still able to enjoy the Tangled movie and if yes, how? I've been trying for years to forget about it and treating it as not canon, but I'm still always reminded of it and told that I have to count it as canon and that I'm awful for hating it. This is so hard for me because Tangled was one of my favorite movies and my favorite love story.

The one reason I might not quite live up to the title of the biggest hater of this character assassinating, coping "feminism" representing train-wreck is because I quit it, I believe, midway into season 2. I was fortunate to not make it as far as the episode where Rapunzel tries to alter Flynn's personality with time travel. Because evidently, from a witty, independently thinking young woman who wasn't afraid to speak her mind in the most vulnerable and stressful situations the series turned her into a pseudo-progressive stereotype of a woman whose idea of "empowerment" is to be in the position of control and dominance. The position that would give her the power to remove other person's autonomy and agency and alter their thought process with manipulation. Thus assuming the role of Gothel (who was rightly and unequivocally shown as the abuser in the OG movie) or, as is the case with most of the episodes of the series that I did see, enabling and endorsing Cassandra fulfilling that role.

Except when Cassandra, a young, good looking, sword wielding "girlboss" was doing the same things as Gothel (even if on a smaller scale), playing the "I know best" card whenever things did not go her way, pushing boundaries of both Rapunzel and Flynn, inserting her unsolicited, manipulative input regarding their relationship that she knew nothing about and was not knowledgeable on the context of it is "feminist and "progressive". According to modern and "aware" Disney, only older women can be abusers; young girlbosses could never.

Cassandra started ignoring boundaries and gaslighting Rapunzel and Flynn, aiding toxicity and lies into their relationship from the very first episode when she accused Flynn/Eugene of being "selfish" for wanting to marry Rapunzel. When a man wants an equal, responsible life long commitment with a woman he considers his partner and whose agency he once literally died for this is "not feminist" and means an automatic loss of freedom - but only for a woman. A man gets to enjoy the idea of marriage and becoming a husband whilst for a woman marriage has to be inextricably associated with her signing up for being a one dimensional, superficial, suppressed doormat with no interests and ambitions of her own.

Progressive Disney and Cassandra said so and they "know best". After all, women are too "fragile", "gullible" and "naive" to know their own minds and need the all knowing society and big corporations to teach them how to be feminist. Where did we hear this rhetoric before?

Right, from Gothel, whom the original Tangled - again - framed clearly as an abuser and manipulator.

Original movie challenged the system of abuse and oppression women experience whereas the series reinforces it but does it under the guise of feminism. In actuality it is repackaging the most ancient patriarchal ideas: that a woman becomes trapped in a marriage and turns into a property of her husband, unable to assert herself any longer, have fulfillment and desires of her own. Instead of challenging this patriarchal notion Disney goes on to reinforce it using Rapunzel and Cassandra as it's mouth-pieces.

This is, as mentioned above, a "coping feminism", not an actual feminism. Instead of breaking the stereotype that a woman loses herself and her autonomy when she gets married Disney has Rapunzel buy into this stereotype and equate marriage with a life long prison. Having daytime nightmares not about her actual imprisonment in the tower by Gothel for 18 years (which would have been a natural psychological reaction in-universe and an opportunity for Disney to explore the subject of PTSD) but about marrying Flynn/Eugene. The series narrative frames it so that in Rapunzel's mind marriage and forced isolation and removal of autonomy are one and the same.

Therefore, in order to escape her fear imposed by this patriarchal "marriage is a prison for women" stereotype Disney not only doesn't have Rapunzel confront it and talk it over with Flynn and move on from this flawed thinking but encourages this stereotype through Cassandra.

Hence why we got an open mockery of one of the most powerful moments in the original Tangled movie canon: the campfire scene. In the series said scene received (as I mentioned before in my break down post) a "reprise" in the form of Flynn/Eugene once again opening up about some of his most traumatic experiences of growing up as an orphan to who he thinks is Rapunzel. In the OG movie Rapunzel returned his genuine effort and willingness to listen to her own experiences with isolation and abuse ("that's why I never left...") and made it clear she was not only ready but wanted to listen to Flynn's "sob story", even when he was reluctant to share it.

But the new, "progressive" sequel of Rapunzel's story does not allow for equal communication between a man and a woman (modern Disney does not believe women can handle it).

Instead, the series implements a "twist" where it is revealed that Hans was evil all along and tricked "stupid and clueless" Anna so easily because teenage girls are servants to their hormones and can't think clearly when in love and Disney is so progressive and feminist for finally realizing it Flynn/Eugene had been talking to a "frog" (Pascal) all along instead of Rapunzel. The "pouring my heart out to a frog" was an actual punchline for a joke.

A scene that had a profound meaning and showcased equal communication in the original film was warped into a cheap comedic relief moment with zero depth and an even more offensive follow up when Flynn realized the real Rapunzel had lied to him and her parents and ran away from the castle. Of course this behavior is enabled by Cassandra, the ultimate avatar of the "progressive modern Disney".

Instead of Cassandra being a complex well developed character who would urge Rapunzel to think, analyze and rise above stereotypes about woman's role in a spousal relationship (which would have perfectly complemented Rapunzel's arc in the OG film where her analytical thinking was so acute she would chart stars and make observations despite the confinement of her tower that she never left) Cassandra is perpetuating and playing into Rapunzel's misplaced view of marriage and aids her in lying to and distancing herself from Flynn.

This is a prime example of "coping feminism": instead of challenging the system the narrative - and Cassandra - make Rapunzel conform to it and avoid the issue rather than tackling it head on.

And all that in the very first episode of this insulting product of Disney's faux progressive pandering. It was only natural that what followed next was a further assassination of Rapunzel and Flynn's characters individually and as a couple, reduction of Flynn to a useless comedic relief sidekick (because again, progressive media and modern Disney do not believe women have enough emotional intelligence to communicate with men on equal footing therefore men have to be robbed of any competence) and the ultimate "feminist twist" in the climax. Where Disney copied and pasted the arguments from victim blaming "progressives" about how original movie Rapunzel was "weak" for not cutting off her hair on her own.

In the series, thus, Rapunzel does cut it off on her own whilst Flynn's sacrifice is not only nullified but rendered useless, just like himself (he remains incapacitated throughout the entire scene). Cherry on top is that Rapunzel does this not for herself or him but chiefly for Cassandra - who spent the whole series violating her and Flynn's autonomy. But that's acceptable, progressive and good because Cassandra "knows best".

This was Disney's ultimate moment of "coping feminism". Very deliberately, they validated the "Rapunzel should have cut off her hair on her own to prove she is strong" rhetoric. Which not only places responsibility for escaping abuse on a victim but, from the standpoint of psychology and media criticism, feeds into the idea that if a victim can't leave an abusive situation they are "not trying hard enough and deserve what they get".

Finally, from the standpoint of feminist analysis and representation of women in popular media, this notion forces women to act within the system of abuse and oppression (but in a "badass", "girlboss" manner) instead of challenging it.

Original movie did challenge this system: instead of having Rapunzel accept the conditions imposed by her abuser Gothel (they make a deal that benefits Gothel where Rapunzel pleads to be allowed to heal Flynn at the expense of her freedom) or cut off her hair within those conditions (Gothel wants Rapunzel's hair for her selfish needs, Rapunzel cuts it off, abuser's needs are not met but remain the focus of the situation/resolution of the situation) Rapunzel and Flynn both reclaim the narrative.

Rapunzel reclaims the narrative by bonding with first the thugs from the pub (despite their unconventional and, on a surface level, frightening exterior and outcast status in the society) and then Flynn. As well as by eventually choosing to use not the blackmail, trickery or frying pan wielding antics (those "girlboss" attributes only ever got her and Flynn in trouble and delayed Rapunzel's goal to see the lanterns) but communication, empathy and partnership. That's the entire reason why the thugs were able to break Flynn out of jail and he was able to get to the tower in time: because of the situation Rapunzel created through learning and breaking stereotypes. Be it stereotypes imposed by the society (the thugs cannot be trusted because they are a marginalized and ostracized - "malicious, mean and scary" - underprivileged group, Flynn is a lowly orphaned thief who will use and take advantage of someone as "naive" and inexperienced as Rapunzel) or those imposed by Gothel (people are inherently dangerous, Rapunzel is "too weak to handle herself" and the rest is the same as the societal stereotypes described in previous parentheses because Gothel's character represented them).

In the series Rapunzel learns exactly nothing: she conforms to the very same stereotypes the original movie challenged.

Worse of all is that the existence of the series cannot be ignored - and this is where your perfectly valid questions comes into play. The series IS canon because it is set in the same universe and timeline as the OG movie's ending and precedes the wedding short.

One can think what they will about the Disney Live Action remakes. Some of them are good and honor the original story and romance (like the Live Action Little Mermaid), others are as much a pandering pseudo-feminist pieces suppressing woman's romantic agency as the Tangled series (LA Mulan). But unlike the series none of the remakes, competent or not, affects the original canon. Remakes exist as add-ons to said canon and whether or not to engage with them or acknowledge them at all is up to a consumer. Same thing cannot be done with the Tangled series because they are presented as the extension of the OG movie canon.

Therefore, my ability to enjoy the original film was severely diminished. I cannot call Tangled my favourite Disney princess movie (this title is shared by The Little Mermaid, Cinderella, Mulan and Aladdin) but the original Rapunzel and Flynn/Eugene is undeniably one of the healthiest Disney romantic couples. On the contrary, the series Rapunzel and Flynn/Eugene is one of the most unhealthy relationships in animated media in general because of how they're written.

But - as responsible adults we have to recognize that neither Disney nor any other popular media, no matter how much some of it might speak to us personally or how well crafted it might occasionally be, is a factory of happiness and joy. This is business through and through and pandering to trends is something Disney and other big companies have been doing since the dawn of time. The problem is that at this point said pandering goes beyond the unavoidable conformism to modern culture climate and promotes dangerous ideas under the guise of progressiveness. Not to mention the in-universe plot related retcons that have to happen in order for such products like the Tangled series to even exist.

If we remain aware that Rapunzel, Flynn and other characters do not actually exist, have agency or any real choices beyond the powerful Disney executives' will and whims it becomes easier to recognize some developments are problematic and there is nothing we, consumers, can do about it. Other than to still enjoy the product in it's more quality and well written form by only interacting with the original movie.

We cannot control media but we can and should control our experience with it and vote with our remote and our wallet.