Snow White criticism proves not all movies deserve remakes
And yes, it's complicated
The pendulum of reactions to remakes of classic films can swing in two extreme directions; both stem from the same sentiment. One reaction is often 'did we need this?' and the second is 'I'm so excited, but only if everything about the original remains untouched.'
In a vacuum, neither opinion is bad, or for lack of a better word, problematic. In the first instance, there are plenty of examples of classic stories that don't cry out for reimaginings or adaptations: take Psycho, remade shot-for-shot in colour, or the recent photorealistic Lion King remake, with those dead-behind-the-eyes cats.
The idea of remaking something without changing, well, anything, is harder to rebut because it is so steeped in personal sentiment and, oftentimes, ownership of these classic and beloved stories. Fans see themselves as having rights over any further reimagining of their favourite films and books (though every fanfic writer on Earth would argue against this) because of their love.
Changes to classic characters' gender, race and sexuality particularly irk; and yet it's a trend that hasn't stopped, which is both good and bad. The live-action Little Mermaid cast Halle Bailey, a young Black woman, as Ariel, and there has been more (but not great) queer representation in films like Beauty and the Beast.
Most recently, the Snow White adaptation cast Rachel Zegler, a Latina actress who debuted in West Side Story and it seemed like Disney patted themselves on the back for a job woke done. Fundamentally, however, there is a flaw that Game of Thrones star Peter Dinklage eloquently pointed out.
He said: "You're progressive in one way but you're still making that backward story of seven dwarves living in the cave. They were so proud of that [Zegler's casting], and all love and respect to the actress and the people who thought they were doing the right thing but I'm just like, 'What are you doing?'"
Disney's response did little to ameliorate concerns, and it's easy to see why. What "different approach" could they possibly take this harmful narrative shortcut?
But it also begs a bigger question: Where do we draw the line? As we 'update' classic stories for a modern audience, whose sensibilities about what is not just 'wrong', but actively harmful, have matured? Are there some stories that don't deserve to be remade?
Netflix recently came under the same microscope for their deal with Roald Dahl's estate for rights over his stories. It is undeniable elements of his work often feature the triumph of the marginalised, which seems like it's the perfect progressive remake.
But Dahl's work is also laden with antisemitism, misogyny and racism. As often when antisemitic tropes are used in fiction, it's visual signifiers that denote both their Jewishness and their villainy. The Child Catcher's garb and facial features contorted the conniving Jew into the role of a Nazi; The Witches are a cabal of world-controlling big-nosed wig-wearing women thirsting for money.
Both of these act as visual narrative shortcuts for villainy, in a similar way as facial scarring and disfigurement can be. And in the case of Snow White, dwarfism becomes a narrative shortcut for comical and magical creatures; this shortcut isn't only used by Disney – lest we forget Willy Wonka's Oompa Loompas were originally depicted as Black Pygmy dwarves.
Still, we have seen remake after remake that simply skips over these issues. Similarly, Disney has chosen to ignore the racist elements of its classic films (and, you know, its progenitor): Lady and the Tramp (2020) nixed the Siamese catsentirely, and the wildly racist Song of the South will likely never see a remake.
Classic Disney films bring with them an element of nostalgia that few of us are immune to, which is what makes them particularly difficult to examine under this lens. It's hard to see the stories we love changed because it suggests our childhoods were somehow lesser or tarnished and in need of a re-edit.
And the truth is, they were. These stories were created by people who had clear and obvious biases and prejudices, and that is the world we live in.
Even films that are simply catching up, rather than altering their make-up, catch flack. Star Warssequel trilogy star Kelly Marie Tran received swathes of online harassment and abuse simply for being a woman of colour in a Star Wars movie.
This brings us back to Dinklage's initial point: we have to consistently question our motivations in why we choose certain stories to update. What is it about Snow White that begs for a remake, and if you need to alter so much of the original work so that it is actively anti-prejudiced, perhaps that original work is undeserving of being retold?
Challenging someone to think critically about the things they love is always hard, and asking a mega-corporation to consider any iota of critical thought when profit margins are in mind is even harder. The belief that one has to sacrifice money-making in order to be more progressive or diverse, or indeed simply less prejudiced, has been patently disproven again and again, but it still feels like studios act out of a place of fear of that pendulum swing.
As such, Disney lands square on both of these issues, the nexus point between money and sentiment. Yes, this makes the conversation contentious both on a micro and macro level, but it also makes Disney remakes the perfect touchstone for examining how we interact with film, and how every decision has a ripple that is worth exploring. All so we might do better next time.
