Frozen - Live at The Hyperion

[flynnibus]

I was making a joke because I don't respect your reactionary arguments. I think you've dug yourself into a hole. But that's your problem.

At least you can admit you weren't trying to actually have a constructive contribution but instead just wanted to deflect and detract.

So I take this as you have no counter to the point made?

'reactionary arguments'? Huh? When one is making a claim, you test it for consistency and applicability. I guess you prefer the emotional 'its my thought and you must respect it' arguments??

 

[ForeverAnna]

Why do we bother putting wigs on Anna.... Her hair isn't essential to the story elements.

Actually it is. The white streak and later color changes are a physical manifestation of the internal damage from Elsa's powers. This is also why it is appropriate for a black Elsa to wear a white wig. Elsa's hair isn't blonde, it's white. I have always taken that to be caused by her powers. Everyone else in the family (in the movie) has dark hair.

 

[flynnibus]

Actually it is. The white streak and later color changes are a physical manifestation of the internal damage from Elsa's powers. This is also why it is appropriate for a black Elsa to wear a white wig. Elsa's hair isn't blonde, it's white. I have always taken that to be caused by her powers. Everyone else in the family (in the movie) has dark hair.

There is an important distinction here between what I was trying to cover and what you highlight (no pun ).

As you mention, Anna's hair is involved in the plot in that Anna's hair gets a white STREAK. A streak that could be added to any hair color. But my point is actually about Anna's BASE hair color and how in costume that is maintained to the film, even tho it has no significance or actual plot tie-in. We always put Anna in a red/strawberry wig.. to match the character design from the movie... regardless of the actor's actual hair color. The fact Anna has red hair, and not brown, black, blonde, is part of her character design and costume from the Disney film. The point is, we make it a point to ensure consistency of these recognizable traits as part of the character's portrayal.. even when they are not features of the plot.

To satisfy inclusion of your plot point, Elsa's hair doesn't need to blonde.. it could be any color and then turned to white. But we stick to the film's character designs and use a blonde Elsa and a red head Anna.

These costume elements are deemed signficant to respect.. even tho they are not explicit plot features. We do not turn a blind eye to costume elements simply because they are not plot tools or maybe.. explicitly referenced (aka Hermoine example). The argument made here has been that they are playing the role and that the skin color difference is completely irrelevant. My point was, why is SOME of the costume irrelevant and others not? We respect other portions of the costume diligently...

 

[ForeverAnna]

Elsa's hair color doesn't change. It is always white. Not blonde.

As for Anna, while the base hair color doesn't matter other than being dark enough to contrast the streak, if she needs to be wigged later when her hair is completely white she needs to be wigged for the whole show for ease of change. It's also much easier to use wigs for quick changes of hair style.

 

[Andrew_Ryan]

If we must present credentials prior to having an opinion, I have Norwegian ancestry and grew up in a region of the US that has a heavy Scandinavian influence. I agree that Frozen isn't authentic in any meaningful way, but there's no denying that the aesthetic choices like location, architecture, (some of the) costumes, and art of the film were inspired by Norwegian traditions

I guess this gets to my bigger beef with Frozen: so many of the visuals were lifted directly from Norwegian tradition, yet the whole thing is set in some fictional kingdom that never existed. How would we feel if they had done that with a Chinese or Indian aesthetic, both of which have a distinct iconic style, but a storyline that doesn't have anything to do with the location? It kind of seems like cultural appropriation, which is apparently only acceptable because it's a "white" culture that they're stealing

As I mentioned with regards to Aladdin, both the film and show designers made efforts to have a stylized production that didn't simply copy Middle Eastern designs. Mulan similarly took liberties with a stylized design, even though the film was set in a real place. The Frozen stuff appears to be lifted straight out of traditional designs with very little modification, lending some superficial credence to the claims of authenticity; they simply copied without attempting to interpret it and make it their own.

With that as my framework, is it really that unreasonable for me to hope that the actors portraying these characters look passably-Nordic? Or should I just abandon all hope because the damage has already been done with other elements of the film/production?

Talking about cultural appropriation of Scandinavian culture is a tricky topic. There is a power dynamic in cultural appropriation. People of Nordic ancestry have the privilege of integrating easily into a white dominated culture. The same cannot be said of Chinese or Indian people. Cultural appropriation does not necessarily work both ways.

I will say with certainty that having a black woman play a Nordic princess is in no way cultural appropriation. The other aesthetics you brought up (architecture, costumes, depiction of traditions, etc.) could be up for debate.

"...cultural appropriation typically involves members of a dominant group exploiting the culture of less privileged groups — often with little understanding of the latter’s history, experience and traditions."
http://racerelations.about.com/od/d...ultural-Appropriation-and-Why-Is-It-Wrong.htm

 

[Disney Analyst]

This conversation seems to assume that all Norwegians are light skinned and blonde haired... The viking stereotype? The Norwegian stereotype? Plenty of dark haired, dark eyed, olive to dark skinned Norwegians out there.

 

[flynnibus]

This conversation seems to assume that all Norwegians are light skinned and blonde haired... The viking stereotype? The Norwegian stereotype? Plenty of dark haired, dark eyed, olive to dark skinned Norwegians out there.

Where? In today's diverse global Norway? Or are you talking about the laplanders of the Arctic?
I don't think anyone has pointed out dark hair or dark eyes as a problem.. and 'dark skin' isn't really all that common. Weathered, leather skin.. sure. Dark hair and eyes.. sure. But no one is saying a brown eye'd Elsa in a stage show is a standout.

The native tribes are the Arctic were pretty independent of the monarchs from the south sans taxes/tribute/etc. You don't see Colonial Americans portrayed as Indians.. they were considered separate native populations.

 

[flynnibus]

Elsa's hair color doesn't change. It is always white. Not blonde.

Blonde..

and is depicted as blonde in the show too

As for Anna, while the base hair color doesn't matter other than being dark enough to contrast the streak, if she needs to be wigged later when her hair is completely white she needs to be wigged for the whole show for ease of change. It's also much easier to use wigs for quick changes of hair style.

The point is they stick to the character design.. even when it could be anything and still be true to the strict verbatim source. They don't make it arbitrary because they want the character to be recognizable and consistent.

 

[Stevek]

This thread:

 

[flynnibus]

This thread:

Your solution if you don't want to be part of the discussion..

 

[brb1006]

This thread:

I'm only going to stick around on this thread until Frozen Forever After opens at Epcot next week.

 

[Stevek]

Your solution if you don't want to be part of the discussion..
View attachment 145174

That's the standard internet comeback. It's beyond a discussion at this point.

In any case, was just trying to have some fun

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

The argument made here has been that they are playing the role and that the skin color difference is completely irrelevant. My point was, why is SOME of the costume irrelevant and others not? We respect other portions of the costume diligently...

The skin color of the performer is irrelevant because that was the choice the creative team made when casting the show. They decided to employ colorblind casting and cast performers in roles regardless of their ethnicity. That's why it's irrelevant. It's a standard theatrical convention, one employed by Disney in the past and one that will only become more common. Disney's position is that the Hyperion shows do not contain the actual characters, but professional actors portraying them onstage. The real Elsa is down the street in the Animation building.

The ethnicity is the only variable they set to "x" in the case of this show. They used the same costume and hair designs from the film, but decided to be colorblind in casting.

You may not think that that is a valid choice, but in the world of professional theatre, it is a common choice that provokes not a blink from audiences. Hamilton is currently sold out for God knows how long, and its cast features a host of black and Latino performers playing American historical figures. A black George Washington, for example. No one cares. It's a choice the creative team made.

 

[flynnibus]

You may not think that that is a valid choice, but in the world of professional theatre, it is a common choice that provokes not a blink from audiences.

I never said I don't think it's a valid choice...(its art.. one can do whatever they want.. reception they can't dictate tho). What I've been trying to correct by pointing out the fallacies is I don't think it is TRANSPARENT as some argue it is. Shows can cast however they please, if you don't like it, you don't have to patronize their production.

What I was speaking against were the statements that:

• race is not part of the character, or not relevant to the character design.. (it is - the character is of a specific lineage and culture)
• a black performer is not out of place for the character.. (it is - you wouldn't find black Scandinavian princesses)
• this is an adaption of the character.. so its a change (its not, the character is shown in film form minus her skin color and the change is only for certain performers, not the whole show)
• that someone's skin is irrelevant to their presentation of a character (yet, we hold all other elements of the costume to different standards??)

The point is its a conscious CHOICE to set aside those conflicts in the desire to cast that individual for the role. It is not invisible, it is not true to the character's design, it is inconsistent with other show standards. But it's a creative choice they have made - one can like it or not.

What is their motivation for the choice? Well it would be stupid to speak for everyone generally, but as cited, Disney has made very conscious choices to make these kinds of castings in the past, even to great disruption to themselves to do so (Ex: wheelchair bound actress in Alladin). I have no qualms with speculating that TDA's entertainment team is socially progressive and trying to make statements with such choices. I don't think it's just 'she was the only fit'. Others have even posted editorials supporting the idea that these kinds of castings are not by chance in the industry, but conscious affirmative action choices hoping to address imbalances. These all support the notion that these color-blind castings are not simply a matter of finding talent, but can have additional motives as well (activism).

What it boils down to IMO is Disney has made a creative choice... one can be for it or against it or just ambivalent to it. That's personal choice. What it is not tho is, is the list of things above when it comes to the character.

What is foul is when people assume the only reason to NOT like the choice is because you are racist and put their head in the sand over the real conflicts the choice interjects. It is all about emotion and people just assume since you can't ignore their skin color in a situation where it's relevant, you must be a racist.

When James Bond was recast... we don't set a mandate that you must pretend it didn't happen.. we are free to prefer the old or new actor or just not care. But you shouldn't be accused of being a bigot when you point out that Roger Moore really didn't look the physical part that Sean Connery did in being a playboy spy

It's not racial hate to not be color blind when your physical presentation is actually part of the job. Just like it's not sexism if you don't think men should be waitstaff in a location whose dining concept is to use attractive women as the entire concept of the place. Sex and looks are part of the very concept itself. You can be for or against the concept... independent of understanding the desire to be consistent in the concept.

 

[ForeverAnna]

that someone's skin is irrelevant to their presentation of a character (yet, we hold all other elements of the costume to different standards??)

But the thing is, someone's skin color is not part of the costume. And costume designs are generally in place long before a performer is cast even when using original material.

 

[flynnibus]

But the thing is, someone's skin color is not part of the costume. And costume designs are generally in place long before a performer is cast even when using original material.

So a 5' 300lb black man playing Abe Lincoln works for you? Presentation is how you look and act... there are not specific blackholes or censor boxes in that field of view that make elements disappear.

Costumes are made to a production design and character models.. the cast are playing roles, not putting on a play of actors playing themselves.

If your character is supposed to be a 6'4 thin white dude... you need to be in that ballpark to present the character as recognizable as Abe Lincoln.. along with the rest of the physical costume.

 

[ForeverAnna]

That type of casting is working just fine for Hamilton and is barely commented on.

 

[flynnibus]

That type of casting is working just fine for Hamilton and is barely commented on.

Hamilton is not color blind casting for one.. It INTENTIONALLY casts non-traditional race in the play. It's part of the production design itself. Again you obfuscate the issue when you conveniently cross into productions who intentionally do this as part of the creative intent of the production, when discussing the relevancy of costume to 'look the part' and matching the cast to the intended character they were cast to be. Those are very different scenarios. (in fact Hamilton got in hot water over advertising trying to solicit 'non-white' actors explicitly).
Two.. you didn't answer the question
Three... Hamilton is plenty commented on.. just not here on a WDW fan site.

 

[Old Mouseketeer]

This thread:

We're actually at the point of needing a new dead horse. They only last so long, you know! #snark

 

[Emmanuel]

As of today: Fastpasses now assign you a section at the Hyperion Theater. Several of my friends are there today and informed me of the change