Facebook
Twitter
Email Sign-Up
RSS FeedIntroducing: Cinderella 2012
I’ve been writing and talking about how the princess culture morphs into the diva culture as girls get older, but the transformation works both ways. Over time, the Disney Princesses not only have become more focused on cosmetics than character, but their actual faces are increasingly influenced by pop culture divas. Take Cinderella. Here is what she looked like in 1950, in the original Disney film.:
This is as a servant girl (a part of her character that has disappeared ENTIRELY, but which is the basis for her strength of character and the real reason we’re supposed to root for her…)
And at the ball:
Among the interesting things to note: her hair is not that blonde and her face is sort of regular-looking.
Here she is in the post-2001 official Disney Princess era:
blonder, blander, coyer, flirtier, more like a parody of the princess perhaps? Note how different Belle looks than in her movie, too. And Aurora (Sleeping Beauty). The backpack is an official Disney product–one of the 1,473 results you get when you search “Disney Princess backpacks” on Amazon.
And now here is the 2012 Cinderella that has suddenly cropped up:
I keep trying to figure out who she looks like. A little bit Paris Hilton. A little bit Dianna Agron, a little bit Taylor Swift? She is at once older and younger than previous versions of Cinderella. The original Cinderella seemed like an adult, this one is clearly a teenager. The Disney Princess Cinderella was more fantastical in her up-do and weird head-band thingy. She had so little subtlety in her presentation that, while she was certainly an adult, she seemed to speak only to the littlest girls. This one seems like she’s about 15, which maybe dodges the whole marrying prince charming business (Disney takes a lot of heat on that idea, and they would like to side-step it).
This Cinderella’s appearance is at once more accessible than the last version and equally (maybe more) unattainable–she’s much more like the images girls see as they get older. She’s the girl they’re supposed to want to look like: blonde, pretty, skinny, a little bit sexy. She could be princess-by-day-pop -star-by-night: a new version of Hannah Montana. And guess what? It’s still an impossible, unachievable, externally-driven ideal.
Mostly, though, I think this is part of Disney’s attempt to keep the franchise going. You can only make so much off of 3-5 year olds (a mere $4 billion a year). They need to keep expanding older and younger (hence the “baby” princess dolls and toddler princess dolls on one end and the wedding dresses on the other). This new doll seems geared to the Bratz demographic. Maybe that’s why it seems a little less princess and a little more wicked stepsister…..
What do you think of the new Cindy?
“Cinderella,” Sir John Everett Millais, 1881.
I am relieved, considering the cut of the top of her dress, that she is not exhibiting cleavage. She does have a certain coquettish thing going on that makes me a wee bit nervous. Perhaps I’m old-fashioned but I far prefer the servant girl Cinderella, though I always thought she could do better than to settle for royalty.
WOW! I remember seeing the original Cinderella, not when it first came out though, I’m not that old yet.
It’s amazing to see the transformations through the years. Girls today resemble the ‘new’ Cinderella more than the 1950s version. Do you think this is because girls are trying more and more to look like women and Disney is updating their characters to reflect this? Or the other way around? Sounds like the chicken and the egg question.
Either way, the 2012 version is scary. She looks like she has lightened her hair further and had a face-lift. I’m assuming the character is supposed to be late teens to early twenties. Will 20-year olds be heading to plastic surgeons for face-lifts soon?
I have a 11-month old daughter and a 4-year old son and this culture is frightening…for both of them. We have recently canceled cable and do what we can to monitor what they’re exposed to. I want to say I love your book and have passed it on and recommended it to everyone I know with kids, thinking about having kids and those who work with kids.
I think cable television is the X factor here: I have watched the Disney channel a few times, and I think that what it sells girls is much more dangerous and destructive than any princess merchandise or original Disney princess movies could be.
I think you’ve really named it well, Peggy–it seems like the new 2012 version is the Young Rock Starlet Princess princess, somehow.
Classic Cinderella no longer stands a chance next to BRATZ dolls, Monster High, and not to mention the pop culture icons of today. No wonder Disney feels the pressure to hypersexualize her even more than she already was back in 1950 just to keep up.
Wow! This is incredible and so applicable: I have a 3 year old daughter who is starting to really get into princess “stuff”. She has seen both Cinderella and Beauty & The Beast and loved both. We frequently sing the songs and I *attempt* to relate Belle’s love of reading to the myriad books on our shelves… My mother-in-law gave her several princess items for her birthday about which she didn’t seem too interested. One was an official Disney outfit with a giant headshot of Belle on the shirt – when she saw it, DD began laughing (loudly) and shouted, “Look at her FACE! She looks SO WEIRD! She has mean eyes!” Indeed – who was this Belle? Almost evil and oddly provacative. I’m glad she recognized the change, although she still wanted to wear it… Thanks for your great post on this topic!
Yeah, Belle may actually be MORE disturbing:
Here she is in the movie (before she becomes a “princess”)
Here she is in the movie as a princess:
Here is the newest Belle on a nightgown in the Disney Store:
ew.
This is really incredible! I never saw the movie and didn’t know who she was exactly in the Disney world, but of course I’ve seen that glam girl. Holy moly!
And here I thought I was the only one who noticed. I think that’s why I liked Drew Barrymore in EVER AFTER…she was inventive and resilient and she didn’t wait for the prince to rescue her.
Just when we’re supposed to be encouraging our daughters to study maths and sciences, we hand then sparkly shoes and magic wands.
Gee whiz! What’s a girl supposed to think?
I LOVE “Ever After” and am proud to say that it was written by my former housemate and still dear friend Susannah Grant!
“Ever After” is one of my all-time favorite movies.:)
One of my dearest friends (and former roommates) co-wrote it! I love it too!!!!!!!
Belle was a reader, she loved to read and Merida in Brave doesn’t even marry.
“Just when we’re supposed to be encouraging our daughters to study maths and sciences, we hand then sparkly shoes and magic wands.” -The WP
Not to pick on you personally (because you’re obviously not the only who thinks like this) but this is such an unhealthy attitude to perpetuate.
What does it even mean? That you can’t like sparkly shoes and maths? That liking sparkly shoes will somehow diminish your aptitude in sciences? That little girls who like sparkly shoes and magic wands but their aptitude in the area of maths or sciences isn’t as strong as others should be ashamed? That the girls who are strong at Maths and Science AND like sparkly shoes and magic wands should feel bad; do they have to choose between them?
I don’t assume people mean any harm when they say this kind of thing but the truth is that it is harmful and intrinsically sexist. The two are not mutually exclusive and it’s encouraging an attitude that shames and discourages women to imply that they are.
I dunno. Those parted, ready for fellatio, put me off.
Her pose seems like she’s mid-movement, almost as though a candid is being snapped by the paparazzi. Interesting update to her dress, too, with the glittery, red-carpety look. Finally, they’ve made her updo look less classic and more contemporary, with the interesting sort of braiding/twisting of the hair in the bun. I can hear the photogs: “Cindy, over here!”
I like that analysis. And wonder what the implications are.
I prefer the Millais one! (well, perhaps not to the 1950 one, who I imprinted on as a little girl)
Millais FTW! Thank you for making the case for Cinderella as classic *character*; not eye-candy, not some empty embodiment of wish fulfillment, and NOT marketing for Disney.
So I asked my 8 and 10 year old daughters what they thought. Ten year old says “that’s ugly! Why does she have wings?” Eight year old likes it. I should add that my 10 year old has never been a princess-y girl while my 8 year old is all about princesses, still.
I’ll stick with the 1950′s Cinderella as well; to this day I wish they had really had the step-sisters cut their feet to try to fit them into the shoe.
When I first saw this new model in Disney Princess magazine, I simply waved it off as the artist who was hired to do illustrations was drawing off model but it was within acceptable boundaries to be published. (not that I would agree with that personally, but product standards very) however seeing this design in multiple products is giving me reason to pause.
First off, her facial design strikes me as not Cinderella, but Barbie dressed as Cinderella. (something about it reminds me of that static smile that artists of Barbie packaging put on all of her related products. My opinion though.)
Her dress, doesn’t bother me, although I would love it if Disney remembered cinderella always wore a silver dress in her film and not a blue one. Besides the colour issue, honestly with all the princess products they are consistently redesigning the dresses for a new theme of the month year. Let’s make 50ish looking versions of the gowns, let’s make designer versions of the gowns, ballet versions, etc. The Parks are consistently making different versions of the same gowns for every parade, show, or special event. The artist in me will shout it is fun to redesign a well known character in their outfit. (fanart of the princesses as superheroes and fanart of a more historical take on the princess outfits come to mind).
While the modern take on the front of her hair is intriquing, but the knotted bun in the back just reminds me of the poster ‘Disney gave me unrealistic expectations of hair.’ Although, you can now see she actually has ears! I liked the old style better, and I am not sure why there is the need to modernize it. Maybe we will get lucky and this will just end up being a flavor of the month design and pass. (I hope so, belle’s and aurora’s new hair bother me a lot more than Cindy’s. )
I was also thinking she looks a LOT like today’s Barbie (a doll whose face has also changed myriad times over the years, reflecting different ideas of beauty/glamour). Which is kind of weird since Barbie has lost a lot of ground in her popularity? And I also noticed that she had ears for the first time in history. I’ve always wondered about that strange headband thing with the buttons on her head…..
[...] interested in sociology, media studies, or gender studies to read. She recently wrote an excellent entry on her blog about Cinderella in 2012 and the whole transformation of the Disney princess [...]
Very interesting comparison. The use of the “souped up” version on pajamas certainly gives one pause. I don’t understand why Disney would tweak their characters so much; it would seem to me that these tweaks would have an adverse affect on the original films. I can imagine little girls looking at the original Cinderella film and commenting that Cinderella doesn’t “look right.” Like Star Wars figures, seems the Princess “swag” has become more valuable than the original films. Certainly, since the corporation licenses out the rights to use the imagery on products (to companies that own no rights to the films) I suppose the “swag” is the only relevant issue anymore. I’d be interested to know what are the character guidelines for companies that license the right to create and distribute the products. I mean–can they tweak the characters even farther?
No licensees can’t tweak characters, which is why I find this particularly shocking because if it’s on licensed products it means it’s in the official licensing style guide and has been created by Disney, not the designer of the particular product or item it appears on.
Licensees aren’t allowed to use a slight variation of the official colours for an image, never mind changes as drastic as this.
I’m sorry but this is completely ridiculous. Changing Cinderella? She has been around for so long and everyone who grew up with her when they think of her they think of her with a certain look which isn’t an all sparkle dress, braided hair, a baby twelve year old look. The new 2012 Cinderella looks unclassy and pitiful. This is seriously not okay. and what is “I’m to sexy for my gown? provocative much???? this is just so ridiculous. How can you just change cinderella and how can all of you be okay with it? are we chaining snow white or any other characters i don’t think so and if we did…HORRIBLE. this is just so wrong, how do you change the classic cinderella, to an ugly twelve year old all sparkled up. If you ask anyone who actually grew up with cinderella i highly highly believe they would agree with me. When i saw this my stomach honestly dropped. I know some of you may think I’m being over dramatic but this is my childhood icon..being changed, when she’s perfect just the way she is. i have so much more to say but I’m so mad I’m like blank. disgrace.
I don’t think you’re being over dramatic, I agree
It’s creepy: how do you tell kids that they are beautiful and to be themselves if after 52 years suddenly Cinderella isn’t good enough anymore?
She has to slap on heavier make up because she’s not pretty enough without it. She has to forgo her favourite hairstyle because it’s not stylish enough and what? people won’t like her if she doesn’t? And don’t even get me started on her animated character equivalent of cosmetic surgery.
I’ve defended Disney Princesses for a long time and when it comes to the source material I believe you still can but Disney are making it hard f***ing work!
Well, that was my issue–not the movies themselves, although you can certainly make a case against them, but with the products, including this new Cindy….
I do not like the new Cinderella. I think she looks like a child and to young for the character. I hadn’t realized how much she had changed from the original though. I think this is an extreme change and she looks nothing like Cinderella. I feel like these characters are iconic for Disney especially since they have movies about them therefore really should never have major changes to their appearance. I hadn’t even noticed Belle yet. I would like to know who to complain to about the new look.
What we are witnessing is a Cinderella who has undergone facial surgery. Well, provided she were a real person, which I’m guessing is the idea—little girls are supposed to pretend everything about the princesses is real, and the new Cinderella is a Real Housewife of Happily Ever After. Cinderella’s teeth are veneered, her nose is altered, and her eyes have been snipped and pulled.
Let’s look at that new mouth. Those duck lips are so large, she will be unable to speak through them. She needed the collagen in them to compensate for the thinness of her lips after having veneers put on the teeth.
The ‘surgeon’ did a nice job on her nose. Small, but it still looks natural.
Moving up to her eyes, she’s had her eyelids trimmed a bit to open them up a bit, and she’s also had a brow lift, as evidenced in the severe U-shape in the brows.
She’s probably also had collagen pumped into her wrinkles to smooth them, and if she were a real person, she would have that “fat old lady face” that so many actresses have right now, but is especially obvious on Madonna.
My guess is that girls are supposed to get used to their favorite characters’ faces changing so that when our daughters cave to the pressure of plastic surgery, they will be more accepting of their own transformations. “It’s OK, Cinderella’s lips are this puffy now.” “My eyebrows are supposed to be this arch-y.”
Should we be grateful that at least for the time being, the princesses aren’t displaying larger breasts to suggest implants?
I’m not a princess fan, either, and loved your book, “Cinderella Ate My Daughter.” I recommend it to mothers of daughters all the time.
Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do to curb my own daughter’s love of the Disney princesses, and the other day when we were in the Disney Store, a commercial aired. This commercial showed a girl proudly announcing she was a princess, and that it was OK because princesses are honorable and keep their promises, strong, brave, truthful, etc., etc. Why those traits need to be so closely tied with princesses isn’t such a mystery considering the store in which it aired, but it is awfully frustrating.
Shawna, there’s another thread about that new vid:
http://peggyorenstein.com/blog/if-you-let-me-be-a-princess
Also, for some ideas to counter your daughter’s obsession, check out my “fight fun with fun” page….
i thought i was the only one that noticed. i dont like her new face.
Wow! That’s fascinating. What a makeover. I guess the recent-”old” Cinderella still still had hair that was too June Cleaver. I can see the appeal of the new look to pre-teens. Sigh.
Love the implants comment above too. I am indeed thankful.
It’s awful. I love the original movie, as well as I love original Snow White – as masterpieces of animation art. But Disney seems to change everything into dumb, sweet, flirty and brainless girls. I remember I didin’t like Ariel when I was a child. In the movie she fled her home to meet a boy she didn’t know. Stupid she was, but as I disliked a character, I lkied her image, because Little Mermaid reminded me my favourite statue from my home city, also a figure from our coat of arms:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Syrenka_o_poranku.jpg?uselang=pl
Once I’ve met a daughter of my friend, about 8, who was in love with Disney Princesses. Ariel was her favourite. I’ve asked her what if Ariel would have to protect her family. She said ‘Oh, I guess she would call someone to help’. So I showed her the picture of The Warsaw Mermaid. She was excited, because after seeing this statue she saw a different mermaid that she known – a figure of a warrior, defending herself and other people, protective and brave. You know, it is specific of Polish culture and history – Warsaw is a city of 1920 battle with bolscheviks, 1943 Ghetto Uprising and 1944 Warsaw Uprising. After few weeks I’ve met this girl again and my friend told me she was now interest in old legends. Ariel was forgotten!
So, I suppose Disney may introduce something you can discuss, but anyway – original Disney’s Cindirella was not Paris Hilton, but strong and wonderful person. Sad thing to see that.
Hi! I just want to say I have recently read your book, “Cinderella Ate My Daughter,” and I have a daughter aged 3 who loves Disney Princesses. Here’s a guilty secret: When I was a small child in the late ’70s/early ’80s, Before Disney Princesses were marketed as a group, I used to pretend that Cinderella, Snow White, Princess Aurora, and Alice in Wonderland were my friends. I’d have elaborate imaginary adventures where we escaped danger together. The Disney Princess collection is only a marketing of the fantasies that I, and I’m sure many others like me, had when we were young.
Interestingly this hasn’t inhibited me from growing up to proudly call myself a feminist, support women’s rights and equality, and be angered at the constant sexualization of women. In fact, my handle “NotCinderell” is one I picked up years ago right after I got married, because I wanted specifically to distinguish the fact that just because I’d gotten married, being a bride did not, in fact, make me Cinderella. There was a character limit on usernames on the site, or I would have been “NotCinderella.” My hatred of bridal culture is another one of my pet peeves.
I originally was a bit alarmed that my own daughter somehow managed to learn the word “Princess” before she turned two, especially since I adamantly refused to put her in any clothing that implied that she was a princess. I didn’t want to raise a demanding, spoiled child who assumed that people would give her everything that she demanded just because she was cute.
So it took a little soul-searching for me to figure it out: did I allow Princesses in my house, or did I not? I came to the conclusion that what my daughter saw when she looked at princesses was femininity. The princesses have a lot to offer: They’re kind and compassionate, capable, resourceful, often quite intelligent, and they have great (and relatively modest!) dresses and hair. Of all the fictional characters for my daughter to idealize, I think Disney princesses are a lot better than others out there.
As far as the new Cinderella, I’m not seeing Paris Hilton. I’m seeing a young lady in a demure prom dress or bridesmaid gown. I’m a little bit sorry that she keeps that buttery blonde hair (my daughter’s hair is pretty close to the original Cinderella’s hair color, and there’s no mass-marketed princess stuff that matches her hair), but I actually prefer her new dress and hairdo to the original. It’s kind of a guilty secret among those of us in the second-generation that grew up with Disney that Cinderella’s look, much more than that of any of the other princesses, got really dated, really fast. I always thought that her dress and hair as done by the Fairy Godmother were anticlimactic after the gorgeous pink and white confection and understated hairdo that she and the mice put together!
The new Cinderella also has a more understated makeup look compared to the original, who was conceived of during the ’50s, when women wore much more obvious and heavy makeup.
So honestly, if anything, I see this Cinderella as a move in the right direction, not the wrong one.
I think the new Cinderella is cute!
The whole thing about Disney princesses is that they’re supposed to be perfect and beautiful and elegant and I don’t see this new Cinderella as trashy and sexualized and whatever everyone one else is saying.
It’s a little different than what we all know but EVERY SINGLE mascot ever has gone through changes, look at Mickey Mouse he looks nothing like he did in Steamboat Willie.
And as far as Cinderella looking younger, she’s only supposed to be from 17-19, she’s not supposed to be an adult. Of all the Disney princesses, Tiana is the oldest at 19.
The princesses are getting new designs and they might look slightly different but they aren’t showing cleavage or suddenly sporting super short skirts like the Bratz dolls or those Monster High dolls. I personally think the Disney princesses are great role models for little girls and as a 21-year-old, I still love them because theyve taught me that I can be super girly but still be a strong person and that’s something that’s being lost with so many ‘feminists’ shaming girls for being ‘stereotypically feminine’.
Ok, I’m totally done with whatever is bringing this on.
I’m interested to see this blog and find that I am not the only person that doesn’t like Disney’s “new” princesses. I don’t really care why they did it, all I know is that when we went into the Disney store and my 6 year old saw how Aurora (Sleeping Beauty) had been changed, she started crying because they made her “look funny”. She preferred the more classic look, more fairy tale than tween tv, and so did I. Personally I won’t buy the new princesses for my girls, and they don’t want them anymore anyway.
I can just say I am very not okay with the way they have been changing the princesses. I feel like they are trying to change them into Barbies and I disagree with this being okay. I am angry to say the least. So, I think this blog is great.
[...] Disney princesses have – and those who prefer the classic looks. Perhaps no princess has been discussed more than our sweet Cinderella, affectionately referred to as “Cindy” by many of her [...]
[...] who finds this evolution alarming.) The Disney Princesses have grown gradually more skinny and coy over time. And,check out Strawberry Shortcake, Rainbow Brite, Trolls (now called “Trollz”). Even [...]
Just as financial institutions have undermined the stability of the country with fee structures on retirement and savings, the people who sell, especially to children, are undermining the moral strength by subtly leading young girls (and boys) to believe that sexuality, not work and moral decisionmaking are what lead to success. How do we build self-esteem into our plain looking girls who we hope do not imitate these artificial sex symbols if we take out children to see Disney. Disney is becoming toxic.
[...] noticed though, like how the Disney Princesses have gradually become more skinny and coy over time. She sums the damage of ever-earlier age compression and sexualization embedded in sociological [...]