Recommends: My Entire Saturday

I am supposed to be packing, house hunting, catching up on blog posts, and judging ABNA entries. Instead, I spent too much of my Saturday being EATEN ALIVE by feminism. But in a good way.

First, if you haven't visited Escher Girls and read all eight billion of her awesome, awesome posts, I strongly encourage you to do that now. I'll wait.

Second, and related, if you haven't read this post on female athletic bodies as compared to fantastical "superhero" bodies, it is Very Interesting.

This related comic made me laugh. The point is not "all women want this" (because I actually prefer Beefy McBuffcakes Batman) or even "all men do not want this". The point, at least to me, is that living a life where your gender is constantly sexualized is very genuinely background radiation that we are saturated in. And That's Terrible.

Oh, hey, look at this post. It's a post about a woman in the video game industry expressing something that men in the video game industry have expressed before, but being treated horribly for having her opinion. Have you heard this song before? Of course. Are these still great articles to provoke the thoughts? Yowzers.

And then there's this. THIS. THIS. THIS. Do you see this thing? I am blubbing. A female Pixar heroine. A female Pixar heroine who finds her clothes restrictive in a practical way. A female Pixar heroine who feels limited by her roles and her life. Who stands up to her mother in a totally badass non-sexualized way. (Stereotypical action scene? I DO NOT CARE. Men have them. I want them.) A female Pixar heroine who has unruly curly hair. Oh my god, ya'll. This girl. Ariel, I will always love you, but I am pretty sure I am going to have to dump you from the self-image roster in favor of This Girl. Whatever her name is, she gets frizzies and oh my god. *blub*

Will we be watching this in theaters? Yes, we will be watching this in theaters. I will report back.



jill heather said...

You know, I want to love Brave, because Pixar has been getting consistently increasingly sexist (in a sort of passive way) in their films. Toy Story: two male toys and the boy who loves them. Bug's Life: bunch of boy bugs save a princess bug. Toy Story 2: two male toys and the boy who loves them, also the female sidekick. Monsters Inc: two male monsters, a pre-verbal girl, a girlfriend, and a female slug who was voiced by a man. Finding Nemo: a father and son and a bunch of friends, including one female and lots of males. The Incredibles: how a male superhero defeats another male superhero who he was a jerk to. (Skipped Cars.) Ratatouille: a male cook and a male rat become superstar chefs, while the female sous-chef who worked really hard to get where she did realises her goal is really to help the boy and the boy rat, not to be a chef in her own right. WALL-E: robots, a bunch of male ship captains, and fat people are bad. Up: an old man, sad after his wife dies, has exciting experiences with a little boy and a male dog and a male villain. Toy Story 3: two male toys and the boy who grew out of them, featuring a host of male side characters, Barbie, and a little girl for about 2 minutes. Their shorts don't even bother to have token girls.

Now we have Brave. A princess movie.

I want to love it. For my insults about the Pixar movies, I love many of them. But I am not really giving them the benefit of the doubt here. Will the sidekicks mostly be female? Will the comic characters be female? Will friendship and family matter, or will we have a stupid romance plot? I will see this one in the theatre -- something I haven't done since the Incredibles -- to encourage them to make more movies with actual women in it, but I'm expecting to be disappointed.

Randomosity said...

The thing that bugged me most about "A Bug's Life" was that the ants, in order to be biologically accurate, would have had to have been female.

I loved princess movies as a kid. Costumes! CROWNS! I loved crowns and hats and cool, awesome costumes. But princess movies are geared to girls in a way animation in general is not really geared to boys. Therefore you get male heroes who do things any kid could identify with, while the princesses pine for lovers and dream of marriage and success=marriage to the prince. Thus the movie industry reinforces the message that Boy Stories=Universal and Girl Stories=Girl Stuff.

I want a kid's action movie with a female protag and female secondaries and I want them to have adventures any kid could find exciting. That means: No romance as main plot. A world with a sex ratio that occurs in nature. The most interesting female character must be voiced by a woman. I'm looking at you, Monster's Inc.

Rikalous said...

I really like Hepler's idea of a skip button to help you get to the plot. I can think of a couple games off the top of my head that I haven't finished because I have more pleasant ways to waste my time than trying to get past that one mission I'm stuck at.

Loquat said...

Heh, I was hoping before I clicked the link that the "related comic" would turn out to be Amber and her bishie Batman. David Willis has been turning into my favorite webcomic artist, and his commentaries on the dysfunctional gender politics in superhero comics are part of the reason why.

Kit Whitfield said...

The vitriol directed at Helper is sadly unsurprising; it's amazing how vicious some Internet thugs get if you lay a finger on their comfort zone. I did rather enjoy her reply, though. :-)

Brave ... well, I enjoy Pixar movies; they're very much boy-oriented but there's nothing inherently wrong with that. I mean, we should have an equal number of girl-oriented stuff to balance and we don't*, but I've always seen Pixar as artists of the inner-little-boy, and that's okay in itself.

And Brave looks like it'll be fun. But ... but but but. Yes, it can be satisfying to see a female hero triumph over sexism by beating the boys at a traditionally male skill ... but are there any scenes where being good at a traditionally female skill is treated with equal respect? Yes, it's nice to see a woman stand up to patriarchy ... but are there any moments where she shows empowerment in a way that's not male-centred? Because basically what we have there is Daddy's girl out-boying the boys, much to the irritation of the only other woman in the scene - because her mother is presented there as the real enforcer of patriarchy. They're at some pains to make it clear that the patriarch himself is not morally responsible for it. Which ... well, tthhbbbtt.

So to be honest, that scene actually annoyed me more than the boyishness of the Pixar movies. If you can't think outside a boy perspective, fine, do a good version of that perspective - which Pixar does. But if you can't think of a way to show a female hero except by making a big deal about how she's a better man than the men and resists gender strictures imposed by other women, then I really don't feel very respected.

*The only counterbalance we currently have is 'My LIttle Pony: Friendship Is Magic', which I hope my son will enjoy. But that's actually got an interesting counter-take about the whole 'Oh, this wretched dress!' thing. I'm thinking of the episode 'Suited for Success', in which one of the characters, fashion designer Rarity, decides to make ball dresses for all her friends for an upcoming gala. (Here is the song - If you have ever done freelance work, you will laugh.) They all have their own ideas; one pressures her to make the outfit more practical; another pressures her to make it 'cooler'; another pressures her to make it more haute couture; another pressures her to make it more scientifically accurate... In other words, they all have their own opinions about clothes and not all of them are very interested in fashion. But Rarity's interest in fashion is treated with equal respect: she's a professional, to her this is an art form and one that involves thought, talent and a lot of hard work, and her ability to showcase her talents has an ongoing effect on her career ambitions.

What they do is acknowledge that it's perfectly legitimate to be uninterested in fashion as long as you're prepared to respect that it is a legitimate thing to be interested in.

Because the thing is, a lot of women (and men as well) are interested in fashion. It's an art form like any other. And a lot of women like to dress up and look nice, and why not? Presenting it as nothing but restrictive and disgustingly girly isn't respectful to the experience of a lot of people; it's basically saying that to be interesting, a girl has to be 'as good as a boy.'

So fie upon it.

Ana Mardoll said...

I think this is a good point and a reason why we need more female animated heroes, but I personally love that the BRAVE girl is boyish because that was me as a child and there's never really been a Disney Princess to fill that void.

The next closest thing would probably be Mulan, who's first song in Mulan 2 is about how girls should be strong AND feminine.

And... That's nice. For her. But I wasn't a feminine girl, and it was a huge somomurce of tension between mon and me growing up, so... Yeah. I have high hopes for the movie.

I would actually be happier if they don't show her as skilled at feminine things (though I'm betting they will) because I tire of feeling like Movie Girls must be twice as good as a man in order to be valid as a character. I felt that way about Fiona from Shrek sometimes. She's the Perfect wife, warrior, mother, tactician, lover, AND she cooks. Gosh, she sounds awesome. And impossible.

Kit Whitfield said...

See, I don't have an objection to 'unfeminine' heroes if they weren't the only kind of female heroes that fiction offers us. But, well, statistics.

But the thing that really ticked me about this clip was the way the patriarch seemed in alliance against patriarchy with his daughter. But not so against it that he wasn't making her go through a ridiculous performance because ... what? His wife would shout at him? Isn't that basically saying that sexism is fundamentally the fault of women?

I don't mind boyish heroines, but I mind victim-blaming a lot. Makes me want to go find whoever wrote that script and read 'Nervous Conditions' under their window.

Ana Mardoll said...

We have a majority number of unfeminine female heroes in children's media?

I feel kind of the opposite. I love the Disney Princesses, but I see them all as extremely feminine. And, of course, I watched Narnia last night and was furious that they put the girls in flowy LOTR gowns in the middle of a war. And Susan gets one shot off, and it's clearly the most artificial, "Fine, are you feminists happy now?" scene ever. Sigh. :(

I mean, even Rapunzel (and I did enjoy that movie immensely) fights with a frying pan. Not a fire poker or a broken chair leg or a kitchen knife or a mace she dug out of the basement or anything other than a cooking utensil. Yes, it's comedic, but... BRAVE is probably the first Disney Princess outside of Mulan to use actual war tools. Unless Pocahontas had a bow. Did she? I don't remember.

Kit Whitfield said...

I guess I'm making a distinction between 'female hero' and 'heroine'. Disney princesses are all very well, but they occupy roles that are basically about romance rather than anything non-man-centred, which I'd call 'heroine': it's certainly not as independent as the kind of adventures you get from a Pixar hero. Female characters in children's fiction who get to be the heroes of their own story in ways that don't revolve around a man, who aren't also presented as quasi-boys? Now that's a hard thing to find.

I haven't seen Pocahontas; there's only so much Orientalism I can stomach. :-)

Ana Mardoll said...

I haven't seen Pocahontas; there's only so much Orientalism I can stomach. :-)

Heh. Yeah, there's a reason (in my mind) why Mulan and Pocahontas are the most "unfeminine" of the princesses. And Jasmine upgraded to badass in the cartoons. Funny how we never see the white gals -- Cinderella or Snow White or Belle or Ariel -- doing karate kicks as part of their extended canons.*

* Except in the much-hyped Shrek 3 sequence which was in every single trailer and was the shortest scene in the entire movie. Way to bait-and-switch the feminists, guys. *headdesk*

The only animated-movie female hero I can think is Kaylee from "Quest for Camelot", and... she basically is Bella Swan Clumsy and wins by the power of Wisdom instead of the power of being powerful. And then they shove her into a dress and a marriage because she's embraced femininity after wearing pants all movie long.

Kit Whitfield said...

Funny how we never see the white gals -- Cinderella or Snow White or Belle or Ariel -- doing karate kicks as part of their extended canons.

Yes, puzzling, isn't it? And frankly, while I may be wrong, I'd hesitate to consider 'Brave' an exception based on this clip: I think if you have a note from your father, it doesn't count.

chris the cynic said...

I mean, even Rapunzel (and I did enjoy that movie immensely) fights with a frying pan.

I think that statement is misleading for two reasons. The first goes somewhat against your point, but it is more than canceled out by the second.

First, with the exception of the horse that fought with a sword, everyone who fought in that movie fought with a frying pan. It was just a question of who adopted earlier and who adopted later. Again with the exception of the horse, anyone trying to use anything other than a frying pan against a frying pan was doomed to failure.

Second, Rapunzel isn't one of the people who fought. She didn't fight with a frying pan, she ambushed one person with it while his back was turned (and then whacked him again when he was restrained.) That's not nothing, but it isn't really fighting.

Flin/Eugene fought with a frying pan. The outlaws who rescued him fought with frying pans. In the end the kingdom guards adopted frying pans as their weapon of choice. Rapunzel carried a frying pan. She didn't fight. Unless I'm forgetting something.

Ana Mardoll said...

I think if you have a note from your father, it doesn't count.

Well, I agree that it's a problem for a movie, but I will say that I have Real Life Experience with fathers who passively maintain the patriarchy while still encouraging tom-boyishness and mothers who more actively maintain the patriarchy. So... yeah, one more vote on the pile that we need more movies, more variety.

Ana Mardoll said...

All true, but made for a less pithy point. :D

But, yes, Rapunzel fights almost not at all, and the frying pan is surprisingly effective to the point that (iirc) the horse had the army adopt the weapon in the epilogue.

Kit Whitfield said...

I will say that I have Real Life Experience with fathers who passively maintain the patriarchy while still encouraging tom-boyishness and mothers who more actively maintain the patriarchy.

I'm sure plenty of people do. But the fact that it sometimes happens doesn't mean it's good for a movie to present it as the natural state of affairs - especially if they want points for feminism. Which it really seems, from that clip, like they do. But if you're trying to preach a feminist fable, then having one good woman who's good because she acts like a boy and blaming gender roles on women isn't going to work: it's preaching tokenism rather than equality.

jill heather said...

There is nothing wrong with any individual movie being boy-oriented. Pixar is a large studio making one major film a year plus some shorts. Hiring only people who are willing to make movies about boys – not for boys, since girls also enjoy them, as well as adults – is a choice they are making. It’s not that they cannot think outside of it, it’s that they have no interest in doing so.

I can’t disagree with the problems with just that one clip from Brave. We have princesses, who are doing more stuff than they used to (the progression is fairly clear in the Disney movies), but aren’t really heroines. Even Rapunzel got saved at the end instead of saving herself. Or we have heroines, who do stuff but don’t like girly stuff. Lilo is a good exception here, though she’s also not white (she’s not terribly girly, but she’s not anti-girly).

chris the cynic said...

And I did like the movie. But the preview had made her seem like a Hair Ninja Master. Ah, what could have been.

What surprised me most is that, I think, the scenes that made her seem that way in the preview weren't even in the movie. That's not unusual for a live action movie, they'll film a scene, decide it doesn't work, but then stick it in the preview anyway, but with computer animated movies my understanding is that they generally only render what they're actually going to use. (Which is possible if the acting is totally divorced from the visual "filming" as it is in animation.)

So either they went through a bunch of work for the sole purpose of creating a misleading preview, or ... I don't know, they went in after they thought they were done and decided to rework that scene to make her less impressive, I guess.

Kit Whitfield said...

Lilo is a good exception here, though she’s also not white (she’s not terribly girly, but she’s not anti-girly).

She's also pre-adolescent, which gives her a lot more freedom. Her older sister manages to be a reasonable portrayal of a normal young woman - or at least, a normal young woman trying to cope with unusually difficult circumstances - but she's neither white nor the central character. It's one of the best kids' movies I've seen for a long time, though.

Ana Mardoll said...

I *think* I heard that it was a Deliberately Misleading Preview, in an attempt to avoid spoilers. But, of course, the problem is that the preview Rapunzel was basically a different person than movie Rapunzel because the sort of person who spends all her days practicing martial arts with her hair is a different person than someone who spends all her days reading, painting, and cooking. (Not that there's anything wrong with either way.)

Will Wildman said...

I have a fairly limited reference pool in terms of kids' movies, but I can't off-hand think of any where the climax of dramatic action concerns the hero (particularly if female) applying a traditionally feminine skill to spectacular effect. Are there good examples that I'm missing?

(It has been noted by more than one person that The Hunger Games applies a whole lot of 'gender-stereotype-flipping' among its key characters. Among all the reasons that I love Cinna forever is that he substantially influenced the social and political future of an entire country via masterful dressmaking.)


I *think* I heard that it was a Deliberately Misleading Preview, in an attempt to avoid spoilers.

I realise that Tangled is not a totally run-of-the-mill Rapunzel story, but that seems a bit far to go in the name of avoiding 'spoilers'. By which I mean if they are intentionally completely misrepresenting their protagonist's skillset and, implicitly, the nature of the story, I think we're approaching a point where the 'advertising' part of 'advertising the movie' has become completely separate from the 'the movie' part.

The Matrix was a film that worked very hard to avoid spoilers in its advertising, but it still showed actual scenes; it just made sure to avoid giving them any kind of coherent context. They could also have taken scenes from Neo working in his cubicle, spliced in his tender moments with Trinity, and tried to suggest that it was an office world rom-com that inexplicably has some scenes inside a submarine, but they wouldn't actually be advertising The Matrix at that point.

I am not sure if I could list all the implications that result from having a preview of Hair Ninja Rapunzel advertising a movie featuring Domestic Rapunzel, but there's something about substitutability and ideas about which version of Rapunzel would make a more compelling movie that causes me to give them deeply askance looks.


Funny how we never see the white gals -- Cinderella or Snow White or Belle or Ariel -- doing karate kicks as part of their extended canons.

Relatedly, I am suddenly intrigued by the logistics of merpeople's martial arts. So much of terrestrial martial arts is dependent on stance and angle of approach, because getting the other person on the ground is a big advantage and we've only got two legs. In aquatic arts, we'd be ignoring balance and 'falling', but opening up the entire up/down dimension of motion. Additionally, with only water to 'brace' yourself against, stationary striking would be substantially more difficult.

That is not at all the subject of this thread, but it will stick in my mind for a while now.

Kit Whitfield said...

@Will: you may enjoy this thread on my blog, which is full of people picking a terrifying number of holes in the concept of mermaids:

jill heather said...

Yes, Lilo is definitely pre-adolescent and Nani not primary (and of course one of Nani's main storylines is her relationship with David), but still: kid movie with a female protagonist who is neither excessively girly nor excessively anti-girly. We don't see that often, even when the protagonist is 8. (I cannot think of another movie I have seen with it.)

chris the cynic said...

I decided a while ago that if, after repeatedly seeing ads for a movie, I have no idea what it's about that I'm simply not going to watch the movie. If the company that made the movie is convinced that, if I knew what it was about, I would choose not to watch it then who am I to disagree? If they think it sucks, they should know.

What's much more difficult to avoid is when the ads to give you a very clear idea of what a movie is about but that idea is completely misleading. The ad I originally saw for Season of the Witch (an ad that I have not since been able to locate) implied that it would be a completely different kind of movie. If I'd seen a more representational ad (which, in the company's defense, did exist) I never would have gone.

Or, I remember seeing ads for two very different romantic comedies and then realizing that they were both ads for the same movie. Now that doesn't directly effect me* but I imagine that anyone who did go to the movie based on those ads ended up disappointed because I doubt the actual movie managed to deliver either of the stories promised, and it definitely couldn't have delivered both. They were, as I said, very different.


* Because I find romantic comedies to be deeply distressing and incredibly painful and class them alongside horror movies with graphic depictions of torture as things that I never want to see no matter how well crafted they may be (the two produce largely similar emotions in me, romantic comedies just tend to draw them out longer on screen, but afterward the feeling lingers regardless of what type of a movie it was.)

Ana Mardoll said...

I thought (and I blame the ads) that both PAN'S LABYRINTH and BRIDGE TO TERABITHIA were going to be lighthearted fantasy romps a la SPIDERWICK CHRONICLES. Spoiler: They're not.

Kit Whitfield said...

If I'd paid attention to the ads, I'd never have watched Son of Rambow. And that would have been a great pity.


and of course one of Nani's main storylines is her relationship with David

I tend not to think of that as part of the 'princess' category myself. To begin with, any rescuing that David does is very low-key and basically falls under the category of 'helping': he cheers her up when she's feeling down and he asks around to see if there are any jobs going, all of which are naturalistic. As well, while he sort of 'wins' her by finding her a job, it's not the central part of their story: she clearly both fancies and likes him from before the story begins, but - remarkably, for a Disney film - fancying and caring for him are not the only considerations she's looking for in a partner. She only doesn't date him because she feels she doesn't have time to handle a relationship as well as raising her sister, and she changes her mind when it becomes clear that, rather than being a prince who will demand that she place her relationship with him at the centre of her life, he's a man who supports and aids her in her other relationships. Practical considerations forbid the relationship to begin with, those practical considerations form the plot, and it's the solution of those considerations that resolves the plot and puts Nani and David together. It's not really about their relationship except insofar as solving Nani's problems means that she can now date the guy she likes.

David enters a relationship with Nani in the same way that Stitch does, really: it's less about a romantic plot and more about coalescing into a new family, and David doesn't do that by proving his worth as Nani's lover - if that were the only consideration, she'd be dating him from the outset - but by proving his worth as a brother/father figure to Lilo. He doesn't win Nani by courting her but by respecting the fact that she has important things in her life besides him and by working out a way to fit in with that. It's very unusual and rather heartening.

jill heather said...

I also like the Nani/David story. David helps Nani instead of saving her, and Nani clearly likes him from the start. He doesn't particularly pressure her when she says no, as I recall. But it is part of Nani's story, and even though it is done well, it is another "solution: boyfriend" story, a little bit. (Well, "solution: boyfriend as part of a proper family") In any case, I do not mean to pick on Lilo & Stitch, which is a very good movie.

Kit Whitfield said...

it is another "solution: boyfriend" story, a little bit. Well, "solution: boyfriend as part of a proper family"

But then, isn't a boyfriend sometimes a solution? It is, at least, a solution to the problem of not having a boyfriend when you'd be happier with one, or even 'I'd enjoy dating this guy but I don't have the time'. I don't think it presents a boyfriend as a solution to non-boyfriend problems; more that it presents a romantic life with a nice man as a pleasant thing to have when you can afford to. Which I find hard to disagree with. Again, it's like being 'feminine': some women may not want or need it and they should be respected for that preference, but wanting a healthy and loving relationship is equally respectable. The way it presents the relationship struck me as a way of saying that sorting out her family allowed Nani to have her own life beyond just worrying about Lilo. I don't see that being empowered should preclude getting laid: that's hardly a feminist message!

And speaking as a mother ... well, I have nothing but admiration for parents who manage on their own - frankly I think society should stop blaming them for all its ills and give them bloody medals - but the plain fact is that it is much easier to raise a child when there are two adults in the family unit than when there's just one. A partner isn't a solution to all the difficulties of raising a child, but it does make it a darn sight easier. That's not anti-feminism; that's just the reality.

Consider, for instance, the difficulties Nani has with the social worker at the outset: she's supposed to pick Lilo up after dance class and take her home for dinner, but Lilo misbehaves in class and Nani has to be dragged out of work to pick her up early - only Lilo doesn't have the maturity to wait where she's supposed to, heads home and locks herself in, with a pan on the hob Nani hasn't had time to attend to. In order words, Lilo gets into a red-flag situation because Nani is trying to work, cook and babysit all at the same time and nobody can be in three places at once. A boyfriend doesn't give you magical powers or make your little sister more sensible, but it's a second income and another pair of hands in a crisis, and those make a real difference. A few months ago I broke my arm and couldn't pick up my son; I had to call my husband to come home from work and rely on my parents a lot. If I'd been in Nani's unsupported position he would probably have been taken into care, because raising a child is more than a one-person job and if there's only one person to do it, a problem is a disaster. I don't think it's anti-feminist to acknowledge that caregivers need help: frankly I think it does women a terrible disservice not to acknowledge it.

jill heather said...

I honestly liked Nani (though Nani isn't babysitting Lilo, as she is the guardian. You cannot babysit your own child, no matter what the US government appears to believe), I liked David, and I didn't actually object to their relationship as part of Lilo & Stitch. I thought it was well done, that David was a nice guy instead of a Nice Guy, that Nani was an understandable character, that the storyline almost needed to have a David (or a Daphne, but good luck there -- there are parts of Disney which are queer-friendly, but their animated movie division isn't one of them) as part of it. I just think it is too bad, because it's yet another movie where the happy ending required the boyfriend. (I don't recall if we saw wedding photos, but I think not.) Alone it is fine; in the context of eleventy zillion movies that end like that, it's just a little more tiring. (Nani needed help, but remember she also got help from the two aliens and the social worker as part of her new family. The help didn't have to be a boyfriend. Though of course it is easiest when the help is someone who lives with you.)

This is also my problem with Pixar. Other than Ratatouille, I don't really have a problem with how any single one of their movies is about boys and men -- the movies are very good, the stories are good, etc etc. (Well, I objected to the learning to drive short, where the two entirely non-gendered aliens both had very boy names in the credits. Why? It soured it for me.) But when you look at the whole picture, you see a bunch of movies that all just happen to be about men, or to have a relationship as a necessary part of the happily ever after.

Fluffy_goddess said...

... Sondheim as interpreted by My Little Ponies. I really should have seen that coming.

Kit Whitfield said...

Alone it is fine; in the context of eleventy zillion movies that end like that, it's just a little more tiring. (Nani needed help, but remember she also got help from the two aliens and the social worker as part of her new family. The help didn't have to be a boyfriend. Though of course it is easiest when the help is someone who lives with you.)

I guess I see that, but I blame all the other movies rather than Lilo and Stitch, which I think does it in a decent way. Partly also this is a mother-thing: yes, getting help from aliens and social workers is good, but on the other hand, well, kindly uncles may get you through the day but they don't keep you warm at night. Practical help supporting your caregiving is essential, but having a partner is fun.

David is the only relationship Nani has that's about something more than her responsibilities to Lilo, that would exist if she wasn't responsible for Lilo and Stitch. It's the only relationship she has that's about her as an individual rather than her as a guardian. If Lilo gets Stitch, I don't see why Nani shouldn't get David!

Silver Adept said...

/me is late to the conversation, reads excellent discussion...

...sits at the table, with nothing to really add. I knew I liked Lilo and Stitch, but I didn't realize how many good things it did compared to other Disney movies.

Post a Comment