Apologies in advance if I sound too confrontational. I don't mind being disagreed with for the record, but I feel that my words were misinterpreted and I'm being told that I don't understand visual storytelling. I decided to divide my response to the three main points being brought up here:
1. Aladdin and the representation of poverty as a systemic issue.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. The animated film does acknowledge that Aladdin lives in poverty, I did not argue that. But poverty as a systemic problem is not what the story is concerned with. It's not a central theme. Class difference, yes, but not the topic of how a highly stratified society like the one in the fictional Agrabah is established. Again, the songs are focused on Aladdin as an individual character, and uniquely treat him as something beyond his poverty. It isn't concerned with asking "why are our rulers swimming in riches while kids starve in the streets"; because that is the type of commentary expected when you want to explore poverty as a social construct rather than just pointing out the very obvious fact that yes, poor people exist and aren't bad people just because they are poor.
The Sultan agreeing to Jasmine and Aladdin's marriage was him seeing the good in Aladdin. By no means would it naturally extend to changing the status quo or even acknowledging there is a problem with it. It isn't uncommon both in actual history and in fantasy that a commoner proves their worth to a noble and they are accepted as part of the household because of the advantages they bring. Very, very scarcely did this ever extend to some kind of systemic change. Aladdin is smart and resourceful and apparently made Jasmine forget she was discontent with her life in the castle so yes, of course he would be advantageous to keep. One of the other stories in the One Thousand and One Arabian Nights, the story of Marjanah and Alibaba, is focused on this very thing. Marjanah was a slave girl, she saved the wealthy Alibaba's son by killing his would-be murderer, Alibaba married her to his son as a reward. It's that simple. Alibaba didn't become abolisher of slavery after that.
2. Female royalty and the lower class
"While not on the same level" I'm sorry but that is where you should have ended this section because you just parroted what I said and still went on a tangent. So I will too.
At no point did I say that royalty does not come with its own share of abuse and mistreatment. I'm not historically illiterate. "Royal families have historically been abusive" and "the struggles of royalty are not comparable to those of the peasants who are oppressed systematically by them" are two completely different statements and both are true.
First of all, you can't compare royalty in every era of the same country let alone say that all royalty across the world function the same. Royal women may not have the same privileges as a royal man but they are still royals. The idea of Jafar having more authority than Jasmine is fictionalised storytelling; unless we're talking about very specific scenarios of royal aides (e.g. them being related to the royal family too), in the Caliphates (which Agrabah is based on) they would not have authority over a princess. Yes, princesses were expected to stay disengaged from politics and were for the most part, but only the Caliph himself or an uncle in a high position could tell her "you can't do (xyz)". Again, this is case by case. The tricky thing with a monarchy is that the rules are dictated by the specific person in charge. But as a rule of the thumb, royalty comes first in the chain of power. This isn't necessarily criticism of Aladdin (though there is much to be said about all the racism and orientalism packed into that film), I'm saying that Jasmine's situation, while not historically incorrect, is also not applicable in all situations all the time.
We can come up with specific examples of abuse in the history of one country's royal family and that's fair. But that is very different from the type of systemic abuse that the disabled and poor suffer. It's not even close.
Let's go with a historical example: Marie Antoinette was married when she was a child. Children cannot consent to marriage and sex. It is bad that she and so many girls like her throughout history had to go through this.
Now, does this constitute that Marie Antoinette has the same share of suffering that French peasants lived through while she lived an exurbitant life in her castle? The "let them eat cake" quote is fake, but there is very much a long list of historical records proving how extravagant of a life Marie Antoinette lived and how much apathy she expressed towards the poor.
When it comes to the difference between royalty and those who live in poverty, the topic of gender is irrelevant. The class difference is way too vast. And for the titular characters here, Jasmine definitely can't ever understand what Aladdin lived through. You don't live as a princess in a castle with a kind (if ignorant) father and say oh I know exactly how someone who has experienced hunger and has to risk their life for food feels.
This is what I was talking about when I said gender struggles of noblewomen cannot be equated to those of the disabled. The entire system is very different. Not living the life you want to have is not the same struggle as being put on a freak show. Disabled children (from low income households) still get left to die because it's too expensive to have them live. I'm sure Jill Biden's inspiring story of keeping her day job as first lady of the US Empire is very inspirational to them.
3. Disney princesses and character arcs
Per the Oxford Reference, a character arc "sets out how a character is changed and influenced by the events in the story." Character arcs are not themes or the message of a story. It isn't about how simple or complicated it is, a character arc necessitates internal change. It is called an "arc" because the character's internal changes are meant to mimic the curved trajectory of an arc.
- Snow White herself doesn't learn or change throughout the story as a result of the events. Instead, her story serves as lesson for the viewer. It's not her within the universe learning a lesson, it's us learning a lesson from her. Stranger danger is the theme of the story, not Snow White's character arc. She does not change internally as a result of it, at least not to the extent that we see, and all external changes happen because of other characters.
- Cinderella's arc does not focus on how to enjoy a moment in life. Her personality from the start of the story was of someone who had learned to enjoy the little things in life. She starts off already that sweet girl who sought light in her darkest hours. By the end of the story, she is still the same girl, only now she is a princess. The change of status happens only externally, and completely independent from her choices. Learning to see the positive things is, again, the theme of her story, not her character arc.
- Belle was not judgemental of the villagers in any way beyond just being unable to relate to them. She did not trust the beast because he locked up her father, then locked her up, then let her out but was still emotionally volatile with her. She was scared of him because of course she would be. But at no point did she respond negatively when he began to change and act with humility and kindness towards her. That is the whole reason Eric fell in love with her: she responded without prejudice to his actions. If he mistreated her, she grew upset. If he was kind to her, she gave him credit where it was due. The entire story of Beauty and the Beast hinges around the fact that Belle is someone who is inherently kind and unprejudiced, and this teaches Eric the error of his arrogant ways from back before he turned into the beast.
Belle's idea of wanting an adventure was rooted in her inability to find purpose in a small town of illiterate people. It wasn't her seeking something in particular, just discontentment with the cards she's been dealt. In experiencing her journey with the beast she found that purpose and excitement. Fair enough, this is better than the other examples. But it wasn't her changing her perspective, she just stumbled into a situation that happened to fulfill her dream. When she chose to take her father's place, it was an act of self-sacrifice stemming from her kind and loving nature. She wasn't seeking to fulfill her wants.
The disney princess animations are poignant stories. They teach valuable lessons in heartfelt ways, and they're kind of timeless for that, because it's never too late to watch Cinderella and learn to be optimisic even in difficult situations. That's not what I was arguing against. A poignant story can be told without a character arc. The disney princess stories are parables; they're short, didactic stories with simple and relatable characters. Parables by nature don't allow for too much complexity in characters because the entire story is serving the purpose of teaching one or two particular lessons in as digestible a way as possible. Don't judge a book by its cover, don't use deception and lies to reach your goals, don't be arrogant and look down on others. That's it.
A character arc on the other hand is typically done to more closely explore a topic. Pixar's 'Up' is an example of this, it explores the nature of grief as we follow an old man's arc, starting with him stuck in the past and in his melancholy, to him choosing to let go of it by letting go of the house that him and his deceased wife lived in.
