Far-left political idiocy is ruining remake of Disney’s ‘Snow White’

By David McElroy · July 15, 2023

Are the people running Disney’s film studios insane? Or are they just so committed to far-left ideology that they want to lose money by alienating their core audience?

In 2024, Disney plans to release its live-action remake of “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.” This 1937 classic is one of the gems upon which Walt Disney built his company. So how could you possibly screw up a story which is already so widely loved?

Easy. You start by casting an actress from South America to play Snow White, a character whose defining characteristic was her, well, snow white skin. Rachel Zegler might be a superb actress, but this Hispanic woman looks nothing like the fair-skinned German woman from the fairy tale.

Then you get rid of the dwarfs and replace them with a “diverse” bunch of people who have nothing to do with the original characters. See the photo above? Those are the actors on set in one of several leaked photos. (The man on the far right is a stand-in for a new character. The Snow White figure is apparently a stand-in, too, not Zegler. The rest are the “dwarfs.” )

There’s one short guy. Several are black or brown. At least one — maybe two — appear to be female. Are some of them non-binary or trans-sexual? We don’t know yet. How exciting.

You now have “Snow White and the Seven Politically Correct Companions.”

We don’t know what all has changed about the story, but we do know there’s no Prince Charming in this one. With no Prince Charming, the new and “stronger” Snow White is instead portrayed as a woman who dreams of being a leader.

Every woman is supposed to dream of being a leader or a scientist, according to current leftist gender ideology. No decent female character ever cares most about love and family anymore. That’s patriarchal. Or something.

Is there anything left of the original story? How do you even consider it a remake after all that?

The actress playing the completely revamped character openly admits that the movie changes the story that most of us loved as children.

“People are making these jokes about ours being the PC Snow White,” Zegler said. “Yeah, it is — because it needed that. It’s an 85-year-old cartoon and our version is a refreshing story about a young woman who has a function beyond ‘Someday My Prince Will Come.’”

It seems as though the people involved in the film can’t even discuss one of the classic’s most popular songs — “Someday My Prince Will Come” — without denigrating the original film.

The new “dwarfs” are not even human. (Activists for “little people” screamed and shouted angrily about the possibility of the dwarf characters being, well, dwarfs. Why would this be bad? Nobody actually says.) They’ve conveniently been transformed into characters more like Tolkein’s hobbits, but it’s hard to say exactly what will be done in post-production in the way of digital effects.

All we know is that Snow White isn’t white. And the seven dwarfs aren’t dwarfs.

I don’t object to the story that the filmmakers and actors apparently want to make. If you think it’s a reasonable story and if there’s an audience for it, go ahead and write it. Make the film. Just don’t pretend that you’re remaking “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.”

I object because all of these changes are politically driven. That’s not art. That’s propaganda.

In Disney’s most recent live-action remake — “The Little Mermaid” — the studio made some similar odd choices in updating the animated version. The Little Mermaid herself became black, even though her father remained a very European-looking white guy.

Why did the mermaid become black? Well, it’s all about “diversity,” you know. These decisions are now made by political considerations, not driven by the story.

Even though there were other changes to the updated Little Mermaid, none were as fundamental to the story and characters as what’s going on with Snow White.

If you hate the 1937 story this badly — and you believe that everything about it tells an evil story — then disown the film. Tell your customers that they’re racist or sexist — or whatever — if they enjoy the original tale.

But what Disney is doing is taking what it considers to be a sure-fire money-maker and it’s ripping out the core of the story and pretending it’s somehow the same. And they’re hoping their customers are too stupid to notice or care.

It’s dishonest. It’s political propaganda.

And I hope audiences will have the good sense next year to watch the 1937 version again — instead of subjecting themselves to this politically driven fraud.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts