“Snow White” (2025), the recent live-action remake
of the classic 1937 animated film “Snow White and the
Seven Dwarves,” has been marred by controversy since
the moment Disney announced the start of production.
What started as an attempt to simply update the classic tale
for a modern audience quickly turned into a high profile
storm of hate comments and public
backlash.

The original story is familiar to
most. Based on the Grimms’ fairy
tale, it follows Snow White, a kind
and beautiful princess
w hose evil
stepmother,
jealous of her
stepdaughter’s
beauty, forces
her to work
as a ser vant.
When the Evil
Queen’s Magic
Mirror tells her
Snow White is more
beautiful than she and
the Queen tries to kill
her, Snow White is
forced to flee into
the forest, where she
befriends seven
dwarves. After
the Evil Queen
attempts to kill her once again (this time with a poison
apple), Snow White falls into a deep sleep, but is rescued by
a handsome prince and presumably lives happily ever after.

The charming animation and fun music, combined with
the novelty of it being the first full-length animated film
made the original movie an instant success, grossing around
$2.3 billion (adjusted for inflation) at the box office, more
than any other animated movie in history. So, the 2025
remake had big shoes to fill.

There are some key differences between the original and
the remake: instead of a prince, Snow White falls in love
with a commoner; and instead of just riding off into the
sunset at the end, she deposes the Evil Queen and takes
control of the kingdom. Unfortunately, pretty much every
aspect of the movie sparked intense dispute, from the two
lead actresses’ opposing views on the war between Israel
and Palestine to the comments of Snow White’s actress,
Rachel Zegler, surrounding the original film, which she
called “extremely dated.”

The handling of the seven dwarves in particular became
very controversial. The decision to use CGI to bring the
beloved characters to life instead of casting actors with
dwarfism made many members of the dwarfism community
angry, as well as fans. The movie, which came out in theaters
a few months ago, was not particularly well received by
fans. Expected to gross $48–58 million in its first weekend
in theaters, “Snow White” only brought in a disappointing
$42 million, according to IMDB.

However, the film does have some good elements. Despite
Zelger’s comments regarding the original storyline, she
brings a fun new twist to the character of Snow White.

She explores a new depth to the character that was not
included in the original. The character of the prince has
also been updated effectively. Instead of a prince, the love
interest Jonathan (played by Andrew Burnap) is a bandit
and rebel, giving his character a touch more personality
than the original, sort of bland Prince Florian. Additionally,
I liked that we get to see his relationship with Snow White
evolve over the course of the film, so it’s less insta-love and
more realistic.

In my opinion, the best part of the new film is the music.
It keeps many of the beloved original songs like “Whistle
While You Work” and “Heigh-Ho” for a touch of nostalgia,
while also adding exciting new ones like “Waiting on a
Wish.” In addition, I thought that the sets were beautifully
designed and let you really become immersed in Snow
White’s world as the story unfolds. From the imposing,
beautiful castle to the seven dwarves’ quaint, cozy cottage,
the sets added a lot of whimsy and magic to the film.

However, I do think that the movie had many flaws. For
example, I found the use of CGI for the seven dwarves a
bit creepy, and I thought they stood out in a negative way
among the other characters. I also definitely preferred the
costumes from the original film to this one, especially
Snow White’s iconic dress, the updated version of which
I didn’t love.

Despite its controversies, “Snow White” still has many
good pieces that make the film appealing. So, I suggest
going to the theater and seeing the movie for yourself
before deciding on what you think about it. Even if you are
a die-hard fan of the original, there will still be something
to enjoy in this magical updated fairytale!

Meet Disney’s new Snow White

Photography has been around for more than two hundred years, capturing moments in time that are forever immortalized with a click and a flash. As technology evolves, cameras can now easily take high-resolution pictures that don’t require any effort whatsoever to develop or share. Editing and filtering apps are plentiful and can help photographers stylize and perfect any image. However, the resurgence of Polaroid cameras has sparked a throwback trend toward imperfect photography. The joy of Polaroid photography is based on its flaws, its spontaneity, and the fun of bringing back what’s old as new again. 

Unlike professional cameras or phone cameras, Polaroid cameras are not super-accurate or predictable. Pictures often end up with odd lighting that creates high contrast between the subject and background. Because the photo cannot be edited, the camera captures the true essence of the moment. This type of unfiltered reality is so rare in today’s photography that Polaroids can be a refreshing break from the constant perfection we see on social media. 

“Phones are boring, social media is so fake, but with Polaroids you can’t fake it,” said Viraaj Pasricha ’28. 

Since the point is imperfection, people can grab their Polaroid camera and click away without worrying about the precise angle, lighting, background, or even their smile.

Polaroids are also gratifying and are a different way to share and remember special moments. Our grandparents and even our parents collected printed pictures to document their good times, but few our age have photo albums. 

“They’re so much more precious than digital photos,” said Pasricha. 

By taking a bunch of Polaroid pictures at an event, friends can each take some home, pin them up on the wall, and enjoy looking at them in a completely different way than staring at their device. 

Ultimately, Polaroids have become so popular due to the recycling of trends. Clothing styles from the 1980s are trendy, and old-school cars like the Trans Am and IROC are coveted again. So it’s not surprising that trendy stores are selling Polaroid cameras and film while playing Tears for Fears in the background. Maybe one day our grandkids will dig up our phones and call them vintage!

The resurgence of Polaroids

Within two months of taking office, President Donald Trump has already cut funding for many departments within the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk. The cuts to the National Institute of Health (NIH) hit especially hard, removing funding from many research institutions. 


The NIH is the federal agency responsible for conducting and supporting medical research. Their mission statement is to “seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.” 


According to the New York Times, in 2024, $32 billion was spent on grants, with $23 billion going to direct costs and $9 billion going to overhead costs. These overhead costs are what the Trump administration attempts to target, but what they’re missing is that overhead costs are incredibly important to research. Without them, the United States will fall behind in the scope of worldwide research progress. 


The NIH has served an essential role in the development of medications in the U.S. A data assessment from the JAMA Health Forum found that the NIH funded the creation of 99% of drugs approved between 2010 and 2019, ranging from cancer treatments to advancements in gene editing. With funding being frozen for some institutions, these developments are bound to grind to a halt. This means that the United States simply will not be able to research as quickly as other countries. This inevitably leads to less innovation, as the funds for the backend operations required aren’t being provided.


Biology teacher and PHS Research Program head Jennifer Smolyn relied on government funding for the multiple research programs and labs that she participated in during her college years.
“I think colleges and universities are going to have to think about who gets to do research. They’ll probably shift the focus more towards graduate students, and there will be fewer opportunities for undergraduates, is what I would guess is kind of the easiest fix,” said Smolyn. “But they will definitely need to think about where the funding is going, how they’re allocating resources, and to whom.”


Smolyn says that she is trying to be optimistic about the situation, but reading the news about these funding cuts is alarming and discouraging. However, she is still positive about the fact that the U.S. will remain a world leader in scientific research and progress despite these cuts. “I don’t know that I would say we’ll lose our position entirely, but I do think it will be more of a challenge to … hold the standard of academic research that we do,” says Smolyn. 


Although the funding cuts only directly affect the NIH, PHS will also inevitably feel its tremors. As the student Research Program relies on money from the New Jersey State Department of Education, which gets its money from taxpayers, this funding cut will likely affect PHS’s ability to support particularly resource-heavy student projects. Research is an integral part of PHS’s academic culture, and PHS students should be aware of these far reaching policies when casting their votes in the future.

Mason Charles's Work