The old Jasmine was a sassy girl with a lot of boldness and self-will and determination who wasn’t afraid to speak her mind. But she didn’t do all that and also complain that she was a repressed victim being denied a voice at the same time. She was tired of her position of safety and banality, the triteness of luxury and the expectations of her royal position, and hungered for adventure and meaning, and that was a well told and consistent story. The new Jasmine seems eager to be a benevolent dictator, and only frustrated that she can’t dispose of the need for her father or a consort or heirs. She has the desire for power and the right to it and is being artificially denied the fulfillment of her noble ambition, or having it come loaded with other structural obligations. Fair enough. This princess seems more like a Queen Elizabeth than the Jasmine of the old movie who chafed under the limitations and responsibilities of the crown and went out seeking new possibilities. It’s just odd that the movie Aladdin, a movie fundamentally about the limitations of the value of ultimate power, should have become, essentially, about the ascention of Jasmine to the crown of Agrabah.

There are other oddities. Jasmine’s song about not being silent, curiously enough, seems to be a silent internal song where she imagines blasting other characters who stand in her way into oblivion in her passion. It’s very bizzare. I’m not sure what to make of such visuals or of such framing.

The actress is clearly trying harder than anyone else in the movie and is clearly more talented than most of her costars. And the movie itself seems more invested in her than in any other character, justifiably, since she’s giving the most back. The weak performances of Jafar and Aladdin hardly merit extra attention or screen time. The best work in the movie was clearly being done by Jasmine.

From an editorial standpoint, the song is little weak. It doesn’t advance the plot, it doesn’t tell us anything about the character we didn’t already know and that wasn’t already well established. So what is it’s function? It’s more of an anthem. It’s polemical. It’s not subtle, it’s baldly ideological and just tells you what the character is thinking, what her stance is (which we already know from her words and actions). The time line of the movie just stops during this song, then suddenly resumes again afterward, something none of the other songs do. And then we actually get to see her demonstrate by action in a few sentences what the song took several minutes to tell us she felt like doing. That’s not great storytelling.

But none of that is what bothers me about Jasmine’s song, which is well performed, far better than any other song in the whole movie. It’s catchy too, if a somewhat odd fit in this movie. It has more the feel of contemporary theater and pop music, post-Wicked, than it does the feel of the old Disney musical. What really bothers me about the song is the strangely dislocated ideology of it. It expresses a sentiment I can’t quite get behind. It endorses an instinct in myself that I don’t recognize as a good one, but rather as problematic. I guess you could summarize it as “I’m gonna be heard” or “the man ain’t gonna keep me down”. And I’m reasonably sure “the man” means the patriarchy, whose overthrowing is the genuine victory and conclusion of the movie. But I’m not interested in arbitrating contemporary political debates or sentiments or debating the merits of such an endeavor.

What bothers me about the sentiments expressed in this song is the same thing that bothers me about the sentiments expressed in Elsa’s song in Frozen 2. They show no aspiration to a higher value than self expression and self actualization. Elsa finds her meaning in her I habitation of her power. “I am the person I’ve been waiting for all my life.” she sings. It’s a very modern sentiment, but profoundly shallow and solipsistic. It’s basically the anthem of every self indulgent sociopath who has ever lived. It’s the song cult leaders and serial killers and obsessive narcissists hum to themselves at night. It has no clear moral value in itself, in fact it’s a sentiment generally assumed by most cultures to be inherently dangerous and destructive. Your self expression is only as good as you happen to be. And if your worldview revolves around the beauty and glory of the assertion of your own self and power and expression, it’s likely to go very wrong indeed.

Jasmine expresses similar sentiments. Her song doesn’t refer to some higher value that has a claim on her that her refusal to be silent serves. She just won’t be speechless or silent. The content isn’t really referenced. Self expression seems to be virtue enough. And this is an instinct I’ve struggled with in myself my whole life. I’m a pretty articulate person. Self expression comes easy. And it’s easy to dominate others as a result. And the glory of that self expression can often seem like it’s own justification. It feels good to assert yourself against others (and let’s be plain, you don’t assert yourself in a vacuum, you assert yourself against others). It’s a expression of personal power in defiance of the power of others. But there’s nothing inherently good or bad, except in a purely selfish sense, about me asserting and expressing myself rather than you. Unless, of course, both your expression and my expression are subject to judgment according to a higher, common value, that compels me to speak and gives value to my expression. But Jasmine seems only to be interested in a justice of equal competition for airtime. She won’t be silent in the face of injustice, but the injustice she feels compelled to resist isn’t some higher, abstract kind of justice that isn’t served by self expression by anyone, but rather by articulation of its universal necessity. That kind of justice might make expression (but self expression) necessary, bravery to speak even in the face of resistance and danger. But Jasmine spends virtually no time at all on such an ethic, and far more time on herself. She needs to be heard. Her voice won’t be stopped. She doesn’t appeal to the necessary need to heed to voice of reason, but the need to hear her.

And that is a curious anthem. It’s much closer to the chest thumping self-aggrandizement of tribal warriors asserting their voice and status in the clan than it is to the thoughtful and passionate appeals to transcendent values of other ages. Not that Jasmine might not be in such a situation. She might be in the kind of political situation where asserting oneself and siezing power are warranted and necessary solutions. It’s just an oddly regressive virtue for a Disney princess to assert in a modern movie, especially when so much of the story pretends to such unrealistic and anachronistic political idealism.

I’ve studied the lyrics very carefully, and I cannot find any message that rises above the fundamental message “they want me to be quiet, and I won’t be”. And contextually maybe this could be a good message. Depending very much on the context. If it’s beacaue you’re speaking to something important, something transcendentally good, then certainly. But the song contains absolutely no internal indication that that is the case. She isn’t speaking for something. She is speaking for her, full stop. And that is exactly what infants do, and noisy toddlers. They also seek to assert themselves, and purely themselves, against the world. They see value in that mere assertion of individuality and stubbornness.

And, as I said, it’s a very odd thing for her to argue, since she the most outspoken character in the whole movie. And the song also seems to inaccurately match up with her present problem in the movie. Aladdin and her father have been captured and will likely be killed or imprisoned. She is likely to be given better treatment. The vizier has just effected a political revolution by means of the intervention of an immortal, marginal genie. Even the main villain, as we see, is quite willing to sit down and be lecture by her and let her attempt to undo his magical revolution by means of convincing the palace guards to just not allow it. It’s not at all clear that her problems are easily summarized and addressed in this manner. Or that the problems facing Aladdin, her father, the genie, or even Jafar couldn’t also be summarized and addressed just as effectively. How does her situation, really, reflect the content of the song more than anyone else’s? “Because she’s a woman” is just a way of substituting ideology for actual arguments based in the facts, characters, and situations in the story. I might just as easily make the same argument for Aladdin being the best representative for the song because of his class, or Jarar because he’s a social pariah seeking legitimacy. Surely his own desires and viewpoints and motivations could be just as easily summarized by Jasmine’s song? I’m sure there’s a way you could even make a case for Abu, the leader of the guards, or the sultan. Everyone has their own story, their own limitations, their own frustrations, their own desire to assert themselves. And self assertion can be as much a vice in a princess as it might be in a vizier or a monkey. That’s why it makes insufficient grounds for a primary ethic and hymn of glorifying praise. All nations sing anthems. Not all nations singing them are involved in doing good.

It’s not a matter of great concern. Context is so much. And children generally find their own meaning for songs and stories. Still, I am not pleased with the content on offer. It seems to lack some essential features. It is a shallow, and also unsubtle, articulation of a moral imperative. “Me!” may be a universal cry and appealing sentiment, but it adds little to elevate or enrich our lives or consciousness. More of me in the world is a contingent and not a necessary good. And that was a hard lesson for me, dearly bought.

Or wait, maybe I figured out why they bother me. It’s because I hate women!! I’m a sexist pig who doesn’t want women to steal my aggressive masculine power for their own. I’m just such a meat head alpha.