Tangled: In Defence of the Disney Princess Romance

Happy Valentine’s Day! 

“Tangled” is not just one of my favourite Disney movies, it’s one of my favourite romantic comedies. It’s a movie with scenes so emotional that it moves me to tears. A perfect example: The scene when Flynn (I will NOT be calling him Eugene) and Rapunzel tour the city, dancing among the crowd and reaching out for each other only to be pulled away at the last second? SWOON. The way he watches her as she looks in awe at the lanterns she’s waited her whole life to see? The lengths he goes to to make the whole experience special for her? SWOON x2. Perhaps this is against the spirit of the holiday, but I want to rant a little. As a certified lover of love, I wanted to mark this auspicious day by going off about one of my least favourite criticisms levied against Disney Princess movies: that love interests send young girls the wrong message. Let’s dive in!

I’ve always considered the Princes, a lot like Ken, as an accessory — there to prop up our girls and remind them how great they are. No one buys Disney Prince dolls or lunch boxes.

Proponents of this argument say that past Disney Princess movies teach women that finding a man is all they need for their happily ever after; that the Princesses lack agency and need a man to save them. This critique is the reason we haven’t seen a Disney Prince since “Frozen” (and I use that term loosely because I love my girl Mulan, but she is technically speaking not a princess and shows the limitations of that title!). People went on about how refreshing “Frozen” was because it didn’t focus on a romantic relationship but rather sisters! How modern! How feminist! Never mind that “Lilo and Stitch,” which was released over a decade prior, had a deep focus on the complexity of the sisterly dynamic. Never mind that there actually IS romance in “Frozen” and that it engages with the issues of the Disney romances more thoughtfully by subverting them. The Prince that Anna thinks she’s in love with turns out to be the villain but her true love interest is someone she grows to love and understand. A more fitting lesson for our modern age.

Recent Disney Princesses are girlbosses now! They’re the hero of their own stories but I simply must ask, haven’t they always been? Mulan literally saved the WHOLE of China all while making new friends and inadvertently prompting General Shang gay awakening. Beast took Belle’s father captive, she VOLUNTEERED to take his place, and escapes from his palace at the earliest chance, returning only because Beast is injured while saving her from a wolf attack. She’s decent enough to not let him die. Jasmine meets Aladdin because she runs away from the palace and, without thinking, gives food to a starving child without the money to pay for it. And Rapunzel —  the reason for this impassioned post — blackmails Flynn Ryder into taking her to see the lanterns she’s always dreamed about. A feat she could have attempted on her own, but surely it’s better to have a tour guide when you’ve literally never been outside before.

Cinderella, one of my favourite Princesses and the one I most aspired to be like as a child, gets the most flack for being ‘passive’ when what she really demonstrates is kindness, grace and perseverance in the face of horrific circumstances. She is rewarded for her generosity of spirit with a night at the ball, which she attends not to meet the Prince but to have a night off from her punishing schedule. The Fairy Godmother only arrives after Cinderella is violently assaulted by her step-sisters for her second attempt to go to the Ball, a scene that is a little hard to watch. In case it’s been a while since you’ve watched the original 1950s version, the Evil Stepmother does all she can to prevent Cinderella from trying on the glass slipper sent by the Prince and is successful in breaking it, but all is not lost because Cinderella produces its twin. Unlike what her critics may think, Cinderella ultimately holds the key to her own freedom. In the end, her happily ever after includes the Prince, but it’s mainly a life of independence, financial security, and a loving family (the Prince comes with a very doting father) after years of abuse and isolation.

The Disney Princesses of olde are criticised for demonstrating traditionally feminine traits and therefore are seen as ‘weak’ or ‘passive’ whereas modern Princesses are seen as more empowered and empowering because they’re, what, more ‘tough’? More ‘independent’ (please see above instances of Disney Princesses always being tough and independent) and less focused on romantic relationships? Mind you, in the ‘romance-focused’ “Tangled”, Rapunzel uses her naivete and optimism to charm a group of ruffians and thugs into helping her and Flynn escape from royal guards. Those ruffians and thugs later SAVE FLYNN’S LIFE (they were going to hang him,  which reminded me just how dark Disney movies used to be, even as recently as 2010). The Princesses have been described as ‘damsels in distress’ but these characters were already strong, already multi-faceted. Rapunzel is resourceful, intelligent, considerate and funny. She, dare I say, holds space for others and has an almost superhuman ability to win people (and animals) over. Rapunzel, despite her abusive and sheltered upbringing, sees the good in everyone and remains open enough to fall in love. 

Another recent Princess of such pluck is Tiana, who unfortunately does spend her entire movie as a frog (we’ll get to that at a later date) but who literally kisses said frog to secure money for her restaurant. She then marries a (very handsome) prince who helps build the Eatery of her dreams (like literally) but it is bought with the money she spent her entire life saving. GASLIGHT, GATEKEEP, GIRLBOSS! Then there’s Ariel, dear sweet Ariel. While she did sell her voice to go to the mainland (a dumb decision that she is manipulated into and that she undertakes in anger because of her controlling father), this act often overshadows the very bravery that leads her to this position in the first place. Despite warnings from her father, despite her fear, and at great personal risk, Ariel saves Eric’s life. Her fascination with all things land doesn't begin with him, she’s curious by nature. Ariel goes up to a place she doesn’t know, where she can’t communicate and, God help her, she makes that man fall in love with her, as was her directive!

Flynn, a deeply selfish and egotistical character, whose first dream was to live on an island on his own surrounded by giant pots of money and who has spent the entire movie avoiding capture and death, is willing to die for Rapunzel’s freedom.

To say that all Disney Princess movies teach little girls that they need a prince for a happily ever after ignores Cinderella’s kindness, Ariel’s curiosity, Tiana’s work ethic, Belle’s intelligence, Jasmine’s conviction, and Mulan’s courage. We can criticise these movies for a lot of other things (their heteronormativity, their whiteness, lack of body diversity) and rightfully so. But also did we stop to think how fun it all is? How hot the Princes are? We simply cannot exist in a world where there’s no chance of another character like General Shang, I won’t stand for it!

None of these young women aspired to become princesses (some of them were born that way so they didn’t have to) or to find love, but so what if they did? When men write about love, when they seek it out, it’s considered art (see: Shakespeare and Byron), they’re praised for how tortured they are, how in-tune with their emotions they seem. When women do it, it’s frivolous (people — past and present — dismiss Jane Austen’s work due to its romances despite her insightful social commentary that transcends time). People often quote Jo’s famous monologue in Greta Gerwig’s “Little Women” to support the idea that love and romance should be decentered from women’s stories (and lives):

"Women, they have minds, and they have souls, as well as just hearts. And they've got ambition, and they've got talent, as well as just beauty. I'm so sick of people saying that love is just all a woman is fit for. I'm so sick of it."

But they often cut off the quote before getting to what I consider to be the crux of it, when Jo, almost in tears, admits that she is so lonely and that she wants to be loved. 

How brave an admission, from Jo and Greta alike. We are social creatures. Humans, on their own, could never defend themselves against the might of a lion. But as a collective? As a pair? It’s in our nature to crave belonging and love. It’s essential for our survival. Jo’s monologue describes women’s lives as a whole experience: our minds, our souls AND our hearts are all of equal value. 

In “Tangled”, Flynn and Rapunzel find in each other someone they can be their whole selves with. They find friendship, camaraderie, humour. Through Rapunzel, Flynn is reminded of his goodness and caring nature. Through Flynn, Rapunzel gets to experience an adventure of a lifetime and is reunited with her family. 

Rewatching “Tangled” made me think about what we lose when we remove romance from the lives of Disney Princesses. The fear that young girls might get the wrong message from romantic storylines is borne of a misunderstanding, the same misunderstanding that afflicts romantic comedies: the Prince is not the prize, growth is. I was struck on this viewing of “Tangled” by just how awful Mother Gothel is to Rapunzel. The emotional abuse, the manipulation. When Rapunzel finally comes to realise the depths of her treachery and boldly announces that she is the lost princess, with an iconic delivery of “Did I mumble mother? Or can I even call you that?” CHILLS. Crucially, it isn’t Flynn who opens Rapunzel’s eyes to the nature of her troubled upbringing, she sees it quite clearly when, at the beginning of the film, she decides to send Mother Gothel on an errand that will have her gone long enough for Rapunzel to escape (albeit for a short while). 

In the penultimate scene of the movie, as Rapunzel holds a dying Flynn, they confess to being each other’s new dream - a scene so poignant and heartbreaking, as two lonely young people grapple with the magic of having found each other against all odds and surviving multiple near death experiences. In the end they are willing to sacrifice everything (Rapunzel her freedom, Flynn his life) for each other. Flynn, a deeply selfish and egotistical character, whose first dream was to live on an island on his own surrounded by giant pots of money and who has spent the entire movie avoiding capture and death, is willing to die for Rapunzel’s freedom. I’m sorry but I can’t get mad at storytelling that impeccable. 

Disney Princesses almost never needed to change to fit into their world or to meet their Prince, their society and significant others changed to align with them. That’s more than I can say for the ‘90s and 2000s YA shows and movies I watched as a pre-teen, which constantly made me feel like I needed to be different to be loved. I felt so comforted by the Disney Princesses that got by on their dedication and wits alone, by their generosity and thoughtfulness. I’ve always considered the Princes, a lot like Ken, as an accessory — there to prop up our girls and remind them how great they are. No one buys Disney Prince dolls or lunch boxes. The story was never about them and making them so ultimately robs the girls of the very agency people are so desperate for them to have. 

I’m not saying all Disney Princess movies should have romantic leads once more, in fact, I don’t think it matters. We should have all kinds of relationships depicted in our stories. However, I think we do the Disney Princesses of the past a great disservice when we belittle their stories and call them bad role models. Each and every one of those girls overcame adversity for their happy endings and if love was the prize, I think they more than earned it.