#aladdin meta

[theyarerealtome]

Back from seeing live-action Aladdin and incredibly, I may love it even more than I love the original. WHICH IS SAYING A LOT.

And most of that love is down to Jasmine.

AHOY! SPOILERS AHEAD.

I adore the original Jasmine, and this version goes a step further to give her a proper character arc and layers.

Don’t get me wrong, original Jasmine is great, but imo can slip too much into the “strong female character” cliché – sure she’s sassy, snarky and fearless but lacks complexity and vulnerability. This new version manages to make her more nuanced, while simultaneously establishing her as a powerful figure in her own right.

This time, when she suddenly has to pole-vault across multi-storey buildings – she doesn’t do it effortlessly. She’s scared. She needs encouragement and screws up her guts to do it. When Jafar taunts her she’s anxious; when her father pushes her aside Jasmine is hurt.

And personally, I loved that. Because it makes sense.

Jasmine’s barely been out the palace and isn’t some trained action hero – of course she’d be nervous! She was risking her life! That doesn’t make her weak and makes it all the more impactful when she’s leaping off buildings and trusting Aladdin to catch her at the end.

She’s smart enough to know Jafar is dangerous, so no wonder she’s nervous around him. And she allowed to be sad at her father dismissing her – showing emotion doesn’t detract from her strength.*

Because on the flipside, this Jasmine is even more heroic and capable than previous incarnations.

Too often, the classic ‘rebellious Princess’ is defiant for the sake of defiance, complaining about their privileged lives and wishing they could be “free”…. you know like all those lucky, oppressed, poverty-stricken normal folk. And that can be kind of frustrating.  

While the animated Jasmine was brave; her main wish was to marry for love without much thought beyond that and she escaped the palace with no real plan.

This Jasmine tho wants to flip the whole system over. Like, she has a goal to become the Sultan that she’s been working towards for years. She keenly aware of her privilege and wants to rule because she cares about her people and believes she can be a hell of a good leader.

She’s not just defying her father to marry for love, but to let her succeed him. She doesn’t reject suitors on whim, but because she doesn’t want some random, thoughtless guy ruling her kingdom. She escapes the palace not for a vague “finding something” but to observe what’s going on in the city.

We see her poring over maps and documents and books; talking about what she’s studied and how she’s prepared to govern. Her crowning moment is demonstrating that she can inspire people to follow her and turn a room to her advantage when the chips are down.

And ultimately, Jasmine’s happy ending isn’t framed as her father allowing her to marry Aladdin. It’s that she’s made Sultan and can change the law herself. In fact, it’s Aladdin’s happy ending to get the girl and get married (when Jasmine basically proposes to him fyi).

It’s such a brilliant flip of the normal set-up: this time round, the female character’s journey was about becoming a leader and gaining power, while the male characters’ was love and a relationship.

Of course, Aladdin still has his own storyline working through his insecurities as a street rat and accepting himself. And Jasmine’s feelings for Aladdin and the romance are a big part of her story. But in the end, unlike in the 1992 film, Jasmine undoubtedly takes the throne with Aladdin as her consort.

And again, that makes sense. In the original, if Jasmine’s husband was going to be the next Sultan, then like she did need to find someone suitable who would be able to run a kingdom? For the good of everyone? It made her refusing to consider any suitors and wanting to run away seem short-sighted. And Aladdin, for all his diamond in the rough qualities, lacked the experience, education, and uh, pretty much anything needed to be Sultan. This version resolves that perfectly, giving Jasmine valid reasons to reject potential husbands and establishes that Aladdin will be an excellent advisor for her bringing knowledge and input from a commoner’s perspective.

 Basically, Aladdin is freaking awesome and everyone should go and see it asap.

 *For me, that’s why I didn’t totally warm to live-action Belle. It felt they stripped original Belle of a lot of her softness and kindness, to make her more tough and badass etc. but didn’t actually “improve” her character.

[writesailingdreams]

If you read about the themes and characters in Disney’s Aladdin, Aladdin is consistently neutral or in the middle ground between the good way to act (blue) and the bad way to act (red, villain).

I bring this up because when you read this stuff, Jasmine comes across as much more the foil to Jafar than Aladdin. And that just fascinates me, cause:

she’s so popular and still the only Disney Princess who’s not the lead

yet she has a much stronger want than Aladdin

it puts Aladdin in a unique position of not being the foil to his villain, but not being bad either

I feel like there’s something about the original tale in this, but I can’t find the words

[writesailingdreams]

I know sometimes people gripe about Jasmine not knowing she had to pay when she’s in the marketplace and hands that child an apple.

But what it wasn’t she doesn’t know she has to pay for things, and it’s more she read the signs wrong?

First, far as it looks to her, some child is trying to get an apple off the stall. She probably assumed the child doesn’t have money, so she reasons you don’t need money to take an apple and thinking the child is hungry, or else why try to get an apple, she hands one off.

Second, the merchant immediately brings up payment and Jasmine makes a confused echo; she didn’t realize one had to.

Third, she politely says she hasn’t got any, maybe assuming there’s some kind of civil way to deal with the misunderstanding. But nope, the merchant whips out and sword and threatens to cut her hand off. This also posits the idea that Jasmine either doesn’t know the penalty for stealing or it’s not the penalty she was taught + she may have seen the situation more as a misunderstanding than direct stealing.

[writesailingdreams]

I knew most of this, but there were details I hadn’t heard (like about Ferngully).

Also kind of reminded me that:

Genie, of the good/hero characters, was the one I initially liked least

if there’s anything I like about Genie it doesn’t depend on his comedic performance (which went over my head as a kid and may have actually made him hard for me to understand; its only been in the last decade that I realized one of his earlier lines is actually conveying information rather than just being rambling).

Oh and I’m fascinated by the quote that Disney’s version of “Histoire d’Aladdin” was conceived with Robin Williams in mind. (Even Ashman’s initial concept had a glitzy Road to... vibe, as I recall.) I just think it’s fascinating that Disney never approached the story as either “let’s focus on the story or main character (e.g. Aladdin)” though Ashman’s initial treatment did a better job in the main character department.

Also, agree with the sentiment that casting voices should be about 1) getting good voices and 2) at least having the celebrity delivery fit with the story/art.

Okay I’m done.

[writesailingdreams]

The Lackluster Use of Jasmine

The thing about Jasmine is that she’s a good, strong character. She’s just at a disadvantage in her movie, since it’s not her story. 

This makes the Princess Franchise neat. (Even if it flips the “who’s story it is” dynamic, which is...fine. I do honestly like seeing Jasmine-centered stories. But I’d be okay with an occasional Aladdin-centered story here and there, just because it’s his story that has always interested me the most).

What’s more of a shame is that the Series didn’t capitalize on Jasmine-centered story potential. There’s some, sure. But the Series could have given her a lot more. It would have been the perfect medium to showcase the stories of characters other than Aladdin, even if he was still the overarching main character.

But The King of Thieves treats Jasmine the worst. Where in the movie Jasmine is sometimes sidelined in favor of Aladdin’s story (I’m thinking particularly of the climax), she’s still dynamically reacting and making choices. She doesn’t really have that in the KoT. She doesn’t really have much of any story, let alone a sub-plot of her own. 

How does she feel about getting married? She is nervous about being a mother, never having one to raise her (far as we know)? What does Jasmine think and feel about what’s going on, other than as supportive and encouraging to Aladdin’s dilemmas? 

(I’m still not sure how Jasmine’s insistence that because Aladdin’s a good person, his father, who as far as he knows abandoned him and his mother when he was a child, is someone he even wants to know.)

[writesailingdreams]

@ladyliliana replied to your post “Is it strange that I can see how Jasmine has a much stronger story?...”

Disney was smart changing the story in their adaptation. I feel the original Aladdin story kinda glorifies greed and he gets things without really working for them        

Sorry this got so long. I wanted to make sure it all made sense. Because I’m me, I delve into the structure of the original tale.

First, while I don’t think Disney made bad changes (though I can see different ways to develop Aladdin’s character), I do see it as a Disneyfied American change. I was percolating on why Aladdin as a character may be hard for a Western American POV to adapt due to the expectation that hardwork or self-discovery make good fortune worth it because the good fortune has been properly earned through one or the other.

Second, I was commenting more on the tale type than the story’s morality. Both The Tinderbox and Cendrillion follow a similar tale type: poor person through magical aid improves their social standing and marries royalty. That said, The Tinderbox (ATU 562) and Aladdin (ATU 561) are both more similar to each other than to Cinderella (ATU 510).

I often see the original tale critiqued because Aladdin doesn’t earn his good fortune and/or it just promotes wish-fulfillment. If I saw people criticizing the solider in The Tinderbox for the same reason, then the former would probably ruffle my feathers less. Because, yeah, that’s fair. Both tales feature wish-fulfillment without any reason. 

(I personally find the soldier more despicable than Aladdin since the former kills the old woman who leads him to the tinderbox and forces the princess to marry him through force. Aladdin doesn’t kill the magician until after the princess is kidnapped and the lamp stolen; Aladdin only forces the Emperor to keep his promise that Aladdin can marry the princess and does so less with direct supernatural threat and more with covert supernatural intervention.)

Third, as regards the morality of the original, I’m not sure I completely agree. 

Though I can see where the argument comes from, I’ve never been able to see the original tale as being about greed. Incomparable luck, sure. Or maybe, story-wise, a lazy boy who’s experiences give him good fortune and lead him to at least learn certain things, such as becoming more knowledgeable about gems and not relying on the lamp to do everything for him. 

I mean, the basic story is: 1) Aladdin gets lamp from cave. 2) Marries the princess. 3) Lamp is stolen. 4) Gets lamp back (with help from the princess and poison). 5) Someone comes to kill Aladdin. 6) He tricks this person and lives. With various details interspersed between, such as: increased knowledge of gems after almost dying in the cave, an anti-Semitic bit with a Jewish merchant swindling Aladdin that can happily be cut out, and Aladdin as a war hero

Though, based on my extensive analysis, the story and its many conflicts and resolutions—with time-skips between each—makes better sense like this:

Conflict 1: Getting the lamp

Conflict 2: Getting swindled

Conflict 3: Marrying the Princess

mini-Time-skip: Aladdin becomes a war hero*

Conflict 4: Losing the lamp and regaining it

Conflict 5: Escaping a revenge murder

The whole final conflict is usually ignored and to me it’s one of the most important parts. It’s the only time the genie refuses Aladdin’s request and therefore he has to deal with a threat to his life on his own.

Because of this, maybe I read it more as a boy who gets lucky and grows from the experience, due to lost and the threat of death than greed and getting good fortune for nothing. 

Or at the very least, if asked to create my own version I would have to include:

gem fruit in an underground orchard

a war

poison

someone comes to kill Aladdin for revenge and he has to escape it without the genie’s help

maybe Aladdin almost gets killed by the princess’ father?

Meaning, the important aspects of the tale for me are its visual wonder, its characters using ruses to defeat antagonists, and its potential for undercurrent character growth. Of the three, Disney only used the second aspect.

For me, Aladdin doesn’t have to earn the lamp by hard work or showing good character; he doesn’t have to earn it all because it’s just luck. The interesting parts of the story are him dealing with the consequences, whether almost being executed or having someone come to murder him.

*I make note of this because it’s the only time-skip that is summarized; the others just say “several years” “a few years” etc.

[writesailingdreams]

To follow through on this, I don’t get why the “dad” angle is so important. I understand why it’s important to Aladdin (how to be a father and all that), but why does Jasmine having a father discount her from experiencing what Aladdin is feeling? Why is “father” = “I know who I am/how to raise a family”? Wouldn’t their mother’s have some impact on them, too??

[writesailingdreams]

Essay & Meta Masterlists

One Piece Masterlist | direct link to One Piece Essay & Meta

Aladdin Masterlist | direct link to Aladdin Essay & Meta

Disney Masterlist | direct link to Disney Essay & Meta