"After Ever After" Video Fails to Deliver

The following video went viral earlier this week in which the performer, Jon Cozart, supposedly tells the stories of what happened to Disney princesses after the credits rolled. Have a look for yourself.

   

George Takei gave it a “bravo.” As one whose sole purpose in writing this blog is to find strength in the princesses for a modern generation, one might assume that I also think it’s a great video. But, in fact, the opposite is true.

First I do have to give Cozart credit. He is immensely talented. His voice is great, his harmonies are amazing, and he has creativity in spades. I certainly believe he will do well in life and wish him well. However, the content of this particular video I find troubling for several reasons. When I first saw the video I thought, "wow, this sure is preachy." The video doesn't actually tell the "what happened next" of the princesses, but removes them from their times and places to make them prove his agenda. He leaves Ariel in the sea, makes Aladdin a POW in the war on terror, and gives Pocahontas a terrible venereal disease. With these three characters Cozart’s points are mostly clear: need to stop polluting the oceans, close Guantanamo Bay, and feel guilty about the massacre of the Native Americans. But what about Belle? Belle's story is the most problematic for me.

Cozart has Belle as a woman being persecuted for her choice of lover. He purports that Belle and the Beast had a sexual relationship before his transformation back into a human and is attacked for what the villagers see as bestiality. So what is his point here? Is he saying we should not judge the zoophiles? I don't think so. Bestiality is universally condemned and is considered animal abuse in many countries. So what is his actual point? Who are Belle and the Beast representing? I don't think that question should be answered since I don't think anyone wants to be compared with a zoophile. If he is trying to gain support for accepting same-sex couples, he should be aware of the slippery-slope argument comparing gays to zoophiles that is routinely refuted by gay-rights groups. If he is trying to gain support for accepting people of all races and interracial relationships, he should be aware that African-American men have also historically been referred to as "beasts" and I don't think they would take kindly to being compared to zoophiles either. So Cozart’s point is completely lost here because finding meaning in it is actually more problematic than not having a meaning at all.

Finally, as a piece of rhetoric, Cozart fails to give his viewers one pivotal key: a call to action. His agenda is (somewhat) clear, but what he wants his viewers to do about it is not. What can his viewers do to help the oceans? What can viewers do to get President Obama to close Guantanamo Bay? What can viewers do about the massacre of the Indians? What can viewers do about the persecution of zoophiles? He gives no answers, no guidance, no real reason behind making this video in the first place.

In spite of the hype, this video is a poor example of effective argument and a poor piece of rhetoric.

~Love,
The Lost Princess