I don't think Disney's recent movies are all that woke (not that there would be anything wrong if they were), but I think people have the perception that Disney movies are because so much of the marketing and fluffy pre-release articles focus on the importance of representation. This creates the perception that these films are "good for you" homework rather than just fun films in their own right.
This is an excellent point. All Disney corporate's self-satisfied crowing over "representation" does is upset ultra-conservative types
and annoy people who do appreciate
meaningful inclusion of marginalized groups. A friend of mine calls Disney's approach "diversity crumbs": most of the time, the movies aren't actually
about the characters' specific experiences as people who are nonwhite, disabled, queer, etc. -- and that's assuming that the characters are even important to the story to begin with. Remember the big deals made about Lefou in the
Beauty and the Beast remake or the support group participant in
Avengers: Endgame? A casual kiss between secondary and tertiary characters in
Lightyear was treated as the end of the world.
As one critic noted, it's nice that
Wish includes a disabled character -- who is also a girl of color and heavyset -- in Dahlia, but why isn't
she the lead instead of generically princess-y quirky Asha? I can't help but take that thought further and think of how much more interesting a story about whose wishes can and can't be realized would be with a disabled character as the lead. What was Dahlia's wish going to be anyway? Was she okay with her condition or might she have hoped for a cure? How would that affect her finding out about King Magnifico not being completely honest about what becomes of the wishes? How would it affect her challenging him?
But to write a story that would sensitively depict such a character and questions would take more effort than Disney is willing to make these days, especially because Dahlia wouldn't be seen as especially "toyetic". (Yes, they did make some dolls/figures for her, but Asha has way more merch.) No, a character who is disabled or queer or (sometimes, though not as often nowadays as leads become more racially varied) of color only gets to be the pretty girl's sidekick. And not even the primary one, in favor of a baby goat.
EDIT: Disney's caught between a rock and a hard place. I suspect they would be far more appreciated by many people if they were to truly center nonwhite, queer, disabled, etc. characters in (some of! it doesn't have to be all!) their films and shows (
Black Panther's success speaks to the potential of that, as does that of the
Spider-Verse films and
The Owl House) rather than throw crumbs. Because taking such a stand does risk offending so many
other people -- even more than they're already offended by the crumbs -- and they're throwing too much money around on these films not to try and appeal to them too, crumbs it is and will be, even though that's clearly becoming a diminishing returns approach in these polarized times.
I think about how nobody at WB made a big deal about how racially diverse the casting in
Wonka is; sure the hero is Caucasian, but there are a lot of supporting roles, and among them are multiple characters of color -- heroic
and villainous. They get to be funny, menacing, and/or sweet, all of them are memorable, and Wonka's relationship with Noodle (the orphan girl) in particular is a crucial emotional throughline that's very well-written and acted.
www.cbr.com
