#suprisingly political but still a fairy tale

[rosengeist]

Every 6 months or so I get this profound urge to make a comedic video essay on how the 1997 Don Bluth film is a fascinatingly subversive take on the Disney Princess archetype. (No it is not lost on me that Disney now owns the film)

Like especially in the last decade or so where Disney movies make characters royals by loopholes, or in straight up confounding ways (see Princess and the Frog or the live action Aladdin). And treat being a royal less as an actual occupation and more as “person who is attractive that everyone likes and gives money to.” Anastasia is the only Princess film where being royal is portrayed as strictly a performative role, and therefore one that ultimately she rejects. It’s not what she needed, nor what the audience needs, to achieve emotional catharsis.

It’s also fascinatingly subversive in that it takes place at a very specific time and place in history, as opposed to “kind of over there, generally, maybe in Norway? idk”. Like one of the jokes about the Disney Beauty and the Beast is how the French Revolution would have happened shortly after the film. And like, there is something to be said about having a fairy tale be set “long ago and far away”. However, Disney loves to give you the flavor of an era without ever really bringing in the politics of it. It muddies the waters of making royalty palatable at a time when we’ve largely abolished it. Anastasia doesn’t skirt the issue of a Revolution, it starts that way. I always assumed that must be profoundly offensive to Russians, but some basic research showed the opposite for the most part. (Not like they care too much about an animated film from the 90’s, they’ve got bigger things on their plate.)

There is nothing wrong with the Disney approach per se, it works for their films. However, Anastasia isn’t hindered by giving you specific years, months, timelines and cultural touchstones. It exists in the same world as political events, artistic milestones, and even medical innovation (like Freud shows up as a gag, it’s not a guy who looks like Freud, it’s him. You also get Isadora Duncan, and Josephine Baker making cameos. Them showing up provides a quick laugh, but also reinforces the idea that being a royal for Anya isn’t a political role, but would largely just make her a Parisian celebrity of the time with no actual power to affect Russians.)

Even stuff I used to think was unneeded in the animated film proved to be an asset to the film once I saw how it was altered for the theatrical production. The stage musical lacks Rasputin, and pulls in the Bolsheviks and it’s made way less fun or concise as a result. Personally I find it a mopey production without nearly the amount of fun it should have. (Ironically early versions of the film had Bolshevik villains but they replaced them with Rasputin upon learning that Russians found the Bolshevik plot more unpleasant. This was an actual case of “a wizard did it” being a less offensive option.)

Idk, I’ve seen SO much film essay criticism that is about how bad some films are, and there is some stuff I find silly in the film, but every couple of months I’m like “yeah, that was kind of an interesting way to tackle that.”

Talking out loud, because I can’t film or video edit atm, but I’d like to make this happen some day.