Once again, Disney decides to "surprise" us with a modern reading of its classic film. We won't review it. But using it as an example, we will analyze why the studio's live-action remakes fail again, and again, and again.

Disney: Here We Go Again

The reason Disney keeps remaking its animated films with live actors is quite simple and banal. Money. To emphasize this point, allow me to quote former chairman of The Walt Disney Company, Michael Eisner:

We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. But to make money, we often have to make history, art, and important public statements.

Eisner's faithful follower, Bob Iger, only heard "make money." And why bother when you can earn quickly and easily by playing on the nostalgia of people who grew up on Disney cartoons?

, Disney needs at least a tiny plausible reason to justify its shameless desire for money. In recent years, the reason has presented itself. Social justice. You can take old stories and "correct the mistakes of the past." Make your princesses strong and independent. Add racial diversity. Solve problems.

Varvara Ulyanenok

The "Woke Disney" Phenomenon – How the Company Has Been Justifying Its Desire to Make Money for 20 Years

Open material

But this path is very slippery. Solving one problem can inadvertently create ten new ones. Plus, by tying new works to beloved old ones, you risk incurring the wrath of actors. Regardless of their age, race, gender, simply because that actor does not fit the established perception of the character in the minds of viewers. For money, Disney throws actors under the bus, well done.

Specifically in the case of "Snow White," something similar happened, which, combined with Rachel Zegler's Colombian heritage, created a volatile mix.

Although "Snow White" had several other very interesting behind-the-scenes obstacles that we previously did not have the opportunity to analyze. And now we do.

When an Actor Should Keep Quiet

We live in a time when the hype around a film becomes no less important than the film itself. Such are the costs of our digital age. Successful marketing often becomes a guarantee of success or failure. Cynthia Erivo's conflict with one of the fan communities nearly sank the premiere of "Wicked," Blake Lively's arrogant interviews turned female viewers against "It Ends with Us."

With "Snow White," Disney completely missed the mark. Apparently due to the lack of PR training for Zegler. Young actors have not looked so unattractive in interviews for a long time. Zegler laughed at the original, joked about the stalker prince, and, of course, promised us a modern and feminist film. The viewer, tired of such justifications, poured their dissatisfaction onto Zegler.

And if her PR failure can be explained by youth and inexperience, then with Gal Gadot things are much more complicated. You see, Americans are currently very sensitive to certain situations in foreign policy. And Gadot quite categorically expressed her opinion, which did not sit well with the very audience that "Snow White" was supposedly aimed at.

And special mention goes to Peter Dinklage, who did not even participate in the filming of "Snow White." Dinklage has spoken out quite a bit about how he is offended by Disney's desire to make another film about dwarfs, thereby insulting actors with dwarfism. But here's the catch – it was these very actors who turned against Dinklage. Because, not wanting to offend anyone, Disney ultimately made its dwarfs animated. Thereby depriving these actors of potential work.

So now you have to think whether actors should be socially active. Or sometimes it's better to keep quiet.

The Difficulty of Stories About Passive Heroes

To explain the film's main miscalculation on Disney's part, we need to delve a little into the theory of screenwriting. I'll try to be brief and to the point, really.

For the viewer to be interested, the story must have an arc of change. Main characters can be of two types – active and passive. Active ones change and go through a character arc themselves: take Kuzco from "The Emperor's New Groove," who at the beginning of the film is a complete egoist, and by the end learns to love and respect others. Passive heroes are not necessarily those who do nothing. Sometimes they do a lot, but they do not change themselves; instead, they change the world or the people around them.

Snow White is historically a passive protagonist. That's the nature of her fairy tale. Notice: she does not change herself from beginning to end of the narrative; she changes those around her through her kindness and innocence.

The biggest secret of the original Disney "Snow White" is that the main arc is undergone by the seven dwarfs. It is their lives that change thanks to the heroine. They are the active protagonists who "grow" throughout the runtime (pardon the pun).

However, the modern agenda does not allow a female character to remain unchanged. Therefore, reinterpretations of Snow White's story historically add much more active action to her. "Snow White and the Huntsman," "Snow White: A Tale of Terror" – all of them make Snow White an active political figure antagonizing the evil queen.

But Disney boxed itself into certain limits by undertaking a remake of its own film and refusing a "fantasy on the theme." Snow White cannot be an active protagonist if all her active actions consist of running into the forest and eating a poisoned apple.

However, Disney cannot not make a modern proactive heroine. And so we get a complete mess of attempts to put Snow White in the foreground. Here you have the reduced role of the dwarfs, the appearance of a certain bandit Jonathan (Andrew Burnap) instead of the Prince Charming, and Gal Gadot's grimacing as a wannabe dictator against whom one must rebel. But the square peg does not fit the round hole because Snow White is still a passive protagonist. Nothing can be done about it.

Purely in my subjective opinion, this is the main sin of Disney studio. Trying to make money and look progressive, they lose the meaning of the original works at a fundamental level. Because they don't understand.

But now you understand a little better.