One of the movie critics of the New York Times is named Manohla Dargis. She is … well, let’s just say she is already responsible for the most pretentious movie review ever published in a mainstream forum, and that’s saying a lot. But that was three years ago. What has she done for us lately? Today, she reviews the new Disney cartoon called The Princess and the Frog, and while I can’t say Dargis has outdone herself, she has set a 21st century standard for political correctness that will be hard to top.
I’ve seen The Princess and the Frog; it’s a wondrous piece of work (my review of it will appear in the Weekly Standard next week and on its website beginning on Saturday). Dargis doesn’t agree, which is her prerogative. (My wife didn’t either, by the way.) But note how she begins her review (Dargis, not my wife):
It’s not easy being green, the heroine of “The Princess and the Frog” discovers. But to judge from how this polished, hand-drawn movie addresses, or rather strenuously avoids, race, it is a lot more difficult to be black, particularly in a Disney animated feature. If you haven’t heard: Disney, the company that immortalized pale pretties like Snow White and the zip-a-dee-doo-dah of plantation living in “Song of the South,” has made a fairy tale about a black heroine, a character whose shoulders and story prove far too slight for all the hopes already weighing her down.
Are you getting this? Disney’s new cartoon “strenuously avoids race.” This is a bouncy fairy tale for children, with the first black heroine in the history of animated film — an admirable, hard-working girl, a kind of self-imposed Cinderella who needs to learn to cut a rug a little. Moreover, the heroine has her problems with race, thank you very much; two white bankers patronize her and tell her that a person of “her background” shouldn’t aim so high. This is exactly how a film of this sort should introduce these questions, with subtlety and tact, in a way that will allow children to ask questions rather than drilling the answers into them in a way that kills the magic of the story.
Has Dargis ever actually met a child?
It is, for Dargis, an especial shame, this refusal in a New Orleans version of “The Frog Prince” not to engage on the subject of race as she would wish the matter engaged, considering that Disney made Song of the South 63 years ago, in 1946, when the people who now run Disney were — how should I put this — not yet women’s rights to choose in their mother’s wombs.
The movie is not only improperly Dargisian on race, but also on feminist matters. “The prince, disappointingly if not surprisingly, becomes not only [the girl's] salvation but also that of the movie…” This is actually an inaccurate depiction of the movie’s plot and the impression it leaves on the viewer, but never mind that. The film is a fairy tale about a girl, a prince, a kiss, and a frog. The reward for the girl in all such stories is the ascent to royalty, and in this movie, that reward is more cleverly rendered than in any previous Disney film.
It’s a princess movie. Has Dargis never met a little girl?
And is there no such thing as an editor at the New York Times who might read such an offering and respond with a simple, declarative, and profound three-word riposte: “Lighten up, Francis”? I bet it’s one fun Thanksgiving meal over at the Dargises. Somehow, I doubt there’s turkey.
“Friday McCain challenged Obama to make good on his promise to accept public campaign financing…”
The Left could care less about Barack “Barry” Obama adhering to his promise to accept public campaign financing. This nonsense was only a hypocritical attempt to weaken the Republican Party. No, John McCain’s campaign must instead subtly point out the weirdness of both Senator Obama and his wife. These two people are bizarre to say the least. The MSM, needless to add, will do everything possible to hide this fact. Thankfully, we can send our friends links to videos displaying the goofy utterances of Michelle Obama. They don’t have to take our word for anything. The evidence is there for anyone who wants to see for themselves.
Romney outspent McCain by, what 10 to 1? Obama would be well-advised to accept McCain’s offer. Money does not buy elections.
“Money does not buy elections.”
Abstractly, you might be able to make a good argument. On the practical side, however, it won’t make a bit of difference. “Barry” Obama’s people will almost certainly bet that spending more money will make the difference. Once again, the Democrats never for a moment believed in “campaign reform.” It was merely a way to sucker punch the Republicans.
Interesting that Hillary’s campaign has joining or planning to join the attack – without apparently having made any commitments of its own, merely addressing the flip-flop, pointing out how it could be used against BO in the general, and despite inevitable accusations of cross-party tag-teaming.
It’s a weird 3-way race at the moment, and the way the Dems respond to any McCain interventions can force them off or even against their own messages – e.g., it’s harder for BHO to maintain his post-partisan pose when fighting with a Republican. McCain and Hillary have also been on the same side with the “talk is cheap” attack. The tactic may be risky, especially if it starts looking too much like he’s propping Hillary up/taking BHO down just to enhance and extend Democratic fratricide, but I wonder if McCain has any other issues that he can use this way, pitting BHO and HRC against each other, and at the same time laying groundwork for the Fall.
If people are going to fall for the snake oil salvation being offered by the Obamessiah, this bit of inside baseball is not going make an ounce of difference to anyone willing to drink his kool-aid.
As Obama himself told us at a campaign event with the pro-Israel community when he was running for Senate, only a live boy or dead girl can stop him (and in the democratic party not even sure if that would).
If McCain can force this false prophet to limit his spending, great move, but backtracking will have no effect on his support.