Response to Breaux

I really enjoyed watching the The Princess and the Frog. I agree with my statements made in Breaux's article of how Disney avoided many of its pitfalls with a princess who is dependent on the male lead, and a female who is motherless and revels in the misery of the lack of a parental figure until an outside force relieves her of the suffering. I saw the movie as an achievement that helped Disney move forward and away from its racist past. Disney never really wins in most of these cases, for some people the movie lacks enough cultural aspects, and for others the movie plays on too many stereotypes. I enjoyed watching a Disney film that didn't where Tiana had "very little interest in waiting for her prince to come" (Breaux 404), and where Tiana was guided by her own self-interest and living up to the dreams of her father of establishing a restaurant without the monetary aid of a male hero. "Love or finding a prince to emotionally rescue her is the last thing on Tiana’s mind" (Breaux 404), and this is one of the things I loved about The Princess and the Frog. It deviated from Disney's popular depiction of love at first sight, and while the ending of the movie resulted in Tiana marriage with Nevine, it took the length of the movie to establish a loving connection and feelings for one another, something entirely different from older Disney films like Cinderella. I do disagree with Breaux's argument that the film missed opportunities to add historical relenacy of the Jim Crow Era, and aspects of segregation. I feel like Disney would have received a lot of backlash from viewers for creating a very racially historical film that wouldn't have appealed to many young viewers who wouldn't have understood the historical context. It would have appeared as the same fairy tale movie that young children like to watch. This is one of those topics that Disney really cannot win, but I think the creators chose the right side in being progressive in using the setting of New Orleans to introduce their first black princess. It's contextually relevant to make Tiana black in 1920's New Orleans, and also inspiring to not revel on the past (though a teachable topic) and create a princess who overcomes monetary adversity and does independently open her own restaurant. They also did a good job of avoided being overly stereotypical with Tiana's voice as well. Some people would regard her as too white, while others wished she would have more black features, but this is a tough line for Disney to walk. But to answer Breau'x assertion that the film's first critics were those who stated that black women's jobs at the time in New Orleans were to "primarily serve white people" (Breaux 407), I think the underlying racism was absent from the minds of the animators who wrote the script. If Tiana had not been serving at the movie, it would not have been such a wonderful fulfillment when she finally escaped from her situation and opened a restaurant where she herself was the owner of the store. By having Tiana be a waitress at the beginning of the movie, which also has some historical racial context, we have a greater sense of appreciation for Tiana's journey when she finally realizes her dream of owning her own restaurant, Tiana's place. 

The Princess and the Frog

While some people may take issue with The Princess and the Frog’s portrayal of Disney’s first black princess as a poorer woman who must work for her living, or with the fact that she was transformed into a frog for half of the film, thus making it easier for Disney to introduce Tiana. I take no issue with Disney for this movie. I respect Disney for making this movie, and I have actually come to really enjoy watching it. The setting of the movie is 1920’s Louisiana, and coming from Louisiana myself, it was really neat to see all of the cultural accuracy Disney had hen portraying New Orleans voodoo culture and the atmosphere of the unique city. I really appreciated this movie because while it was still the classic adversity to true love’s first kiss plot Disney employs in all their movies, it was masked much more effectively and was different from other Disney love animations. In The Princess and the Frog Disney addressed several firsts, and I really respect them for using their first black princess as a way to also kick off other changes in their films. This was one of the first Disney films I have seen where love takes awhile, it’s not easy, and it doesn’t happen right away. In films like Cinderella, the protagonist falls in love right away with the male lead however; with Tiana and Nevine things aren’t the same. It takes awhile for Nevine to woo Tiana, and the love progresses throughout the movie rather than instantaneously. I think this movie also introduced more realistic culture than I have seen in previous Disney movies as well, with the setting being in New Orleans. Just overall, I don’t see anything problematic with Disney using it’s first black princess in this movie because number one: it is required for the setting of the movie, a white princess would not have been accurate for the role in 1920’s Louisiana, and number two: we can still see/hear her blackness even when she is transformed into a frog so it eliminates the idea that Disney is trying to minimize screen time for their first black protagonist.

Alternate Beginnings for Beauty and the Beast

 http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/unseen-footage-from-disneys-first-attempt-at-beauty-and-the-beast-110748.html
http://youtu.be/heAlxJsjAgI

Pretty interesting article on alternate ideas of Disney's Beauty and the Beast. Pictures come from one of Disney's animation developer Hans Bacher.

Older Princesses

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/26/disney-princesses-older-women_n_6858868.html

This article is very interesting because it shows what Princesses would be like if they were depicted as older. While the article is just plain cool, I thought of a new potentially problematic message that many Disney films could be implanting in the minds of young children. All Disney Princesses are young when they search for love, and all are young when they find it. They all get married extremely early, and seem to live happily ever after without any of the later years in life. This observation leads me to suggest that the message could be problematic. Does the search for love only occur during those young years? Does the search for love stop once you've reached a certain age, and is there a point where you can't be a princess anymore?

Kate Flynn's "Fat and the Land"

Disney has been known to use stereotypes in their animated films, and it's no secret that people often find these films very troubling. It's okay to analyze the films and the messages they seem to present to their audiences, but because of the volatile nature of the subjects and how problematic they can be, some people may tend to over analyze. One particular problem I took up with Flynn's argument of Pixar's Up was the issue of stereotyping Russell. Russell is portrayed as clumsy, overweight, and non-appreciative of the natural environment, and thus Flynn sees the message from Pixar stating that overweight children all exhibit these characteristics. I think Flynn is over analyzing the character of Russell in this movie. As opposed to Wall-E, where the message is intentionally trying to establish a link between obesity and technological dependency, I think the message in Up is much different and comes from a different origin. I see Russell as a mere child who is eight years old and still has some baby fat. He is clumsy simply because kids his age are actually clumsy, and he is depicted as dependent, and unappreciative of the natural landscapes simply because he is a child! To see Russell as insufficiently masculine is ridiculous. How many children at eight years old actually present a clear indication of any form of adult masculinity? I would say exactly zero. I see Russell as a form of comedic relief for young children and a reminder to the adult audience of childhood adventure, big dreams, and a tad bit of childhood clumsiness. Russell's lack of appreciation for the sublime cannot be linked to his supposedly Asian ethnicity, but instead must be linked to his age. Young children simply do not possess the knowledge or experience in life to be able to fully appreciate the same view of the landscape that Carl possesses.

America's Values

Up wasn't supposed to be as big of a hit as it turned out to be. It wasn't a story about princesses or fish in the sea, but instead about an elderly man who finds an unlikely companion on a journey that he never was able to embark on, even though he had planned on it since childhood. I think Disney underestimated how popular Up would be, and did not realize that they touched on something deeper in the American psyche. I see Up as a brilliant creation because it allows for more than one age group to identify with the characters and story. From the eyes of a young child, the movie can be seen an visually spectacular, with the magical floating balloon house, and the adventure to Paradise Falls, the land lost in time. Children identify with the awkward, clumsy, hilarious character of Russell who loves adventure and the outdoors, while older viewers take a different stance on the plot. Older viewers can identify with the old America theme that seems to be portrayed by the movie. The theme of settling down with a happy life, building a house and following the American dream. This older generation identifies with the nostalgia of small town USA that is depicted in the earlier parts of the movie, yet they also have a deep disdain for the urbanization and destruction of these small town communities. The older crown will find a happiness in Carl's pursuance of a dream he had as a child, and his fulfillment of a promise he made to his wife whom had tragically passed away. Up is a magnificent film capable of engaging with multiple age groups, and portraying different messages to each audience. Whether is the childish dreams of adventure, the nostalgia for small town USA, or the fulfillment of childhood dreams and promises to a loved one, the film identifies with many different people, and Disney unknowingly or not hit on these key themes.

Lion King Socioeconomic Topic

Gooding and Morton broach an interesting topic on race, class, and space in their articles. Morton's piece is a response to Gooding's paper, and I found that I tended to agree with the arguments and clarifications that Morton presented. I had never viewed the Lion King as a commentary on political issues, and much of what both writers suggested was plausible, but like Morton pointed out, I found the topic of history a bit difficult to digest. I saw the circle of life and characters like Rafiki as a form of culture and spirituality instead of a dearth of both as Gooding suggested. The suggestion that the hyenas represent the lower tier of the socioeconomic classes can be clearly seen by the clash with the lions, where the ostracized members revolt against the power of those in the center of the circle of life or the wealthy. Scar I suggest would thus represent a social movement leader who utilizes his coercive skill and power to promote anarchy and overthrow those in power to both help the plight of the hyenas and himself. But even throwing Pride Rock into anarchy and despair wouldn't necessarily represent a dearth of history as a brand new event is introduced. the circle of life would be history itself, constantly repeating itself and that the change in the course of events would simply represent a shift in political structure and social structure. I don't agree with Gooding's assertion that Africa is depicited as a land dearth of these topics, but I agree with him in viewing the inequality through the lense of the hyenas because theirs would be a more unbiased position to view through because of their exclusion from the circle of life and circle of well-being that the lions live in. By viewing the inequality topic through the eyes of the lions of Pride Rock, we introduce a bias of wealth where nothing appears to be wrong by looking from the inside out instead of the outside in.

A New Cinderella?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/disneys-dream-come-true-live-action-fairy-tales-1426009834

This article points out some very interesting new developments in the world of Disney. Most notably is the production of a live action Cinderella, where the majority of the plot is kept from the original animated film, but where some things are changed to make the movie more dense. The writers gave the Prince a father-son relationship, Cinderella's step-mother a background, and the reason as to why Cinderella never leaves the grasp of her step-mother. While this information might be helpful to better understand the characters in a full length live action film, I see the change as damaging to the original Cinderella. I agree that the characters should have had more of a background to begin with, but changing the story of the characters now will simply ruin the charm and simplicity of the original animated film. While the movie does certainly allow Cinderella to continue to evolve past the 1950 version, it's just another attempt by Disney to squeeze all the money out of a story that they can, but I feel it diminishes the "magical" charm of the original.

Frozen

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-disney-announces-frozen-2-20150312-story.html

Disney just released their intentions to make a sequel to Frozen. Let us all hope that the sequel doesn't fall in line with many past sequels of successful movies. Maybe this sequel will be just as good as first, but then again maybe not.

Putnam's Transgendered Villains

Putnam's explanation of the problems she has with Disney films and the representation of villains as transgendered holds a lot of merit, and is supported by a fair number of observations however, I cannot agree with her argument because I find a different reason responsible for many of the observations she makes. She argues that many villains are purposefully made to resemble the other sex however, I would argue that Putnam falls in the same trap that Disney does in assuming certain qualities to be specific to one sex or the other. Rather, I assert that the main culprit behind the representation of what Putnam points out is unrealistic expectations for beauty, where the villains main contrast to the hero comes from their appearance not as transgendered, but simply unattractive, which these Disney movies assert as undesirable and inherently associated with negative traits.
      Much of what she points out with the differences between the heroines of Disney's tales and the villains deal with their physical appearance. Where Putnam sees the differences as as embodying strong feminine characteristics in the heroines versus the "strong masculine qualities" (Putnam 148), I see the differences as outlining desirable vs undesirable beauty expectations. The clothing and physical characteristics of Cinderella, low cut dresses and a graceful physique, versus the square cut dresses and unattractive qualities of the step sisters does not convince me as an argument for transgendered villains and it does not convince me that the villains "ugliness is really maleness costumed as female" (Putnam 148), but rather the depiction of defined features that young women should try to embody in order to attract the attention of their male counterpart, which would then lead to the stereotypical heterosexual married described in the latter part of Putnam's argument.

     This argument of beauty standards is not unique to Disney, which I would argue furthers the claim  that the villains are defined by their simply ugly and unattractive appearance rather than their transgender qualities. In media today such as the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show and models of Abercrombie, a specific body type is sought after and promoted as the type that best fits their product and an image that men and women should seek to attain. We as a society promote a desirable image, and I would argue that Disney simply piggybacks onto this societal expectation with its heroines, heroes, and villains. The models of Victoria’s Secret all embody the image that Disney describes through Cinderella, and the heroes of our animated films all take after the models like Abercrombie, who are muscular, dominant males.
            While Putnam makes a convincing argument that an alienation of transgender traits as evil composes the villains in Disney animated films, I would argue that a stronger reason behind the depiction of certain traits as either heroic or villainous comes from our beauty expectations as a society. Expectations that are clearly depicted by heroic figures like Cinderella, Prince Charming, Ariel, Simba, etc., where the attractive attributes are a muscular or graceful physique, a great voice and charming qualities, while villains embody unattractive features that goes away from the desired attractive traits.

King of Conformity

After discussing in class the roles of masculine Disney characters and the heterosexual stereotypes in Disney, I watched the The Lion King through more skeptical eyes this time, and I now saw what I did not see ten years ago. I saw that in this movie Disney really went all out with gender stereotypes and family dynamics. All other character's are inferior in stature to Mufasa, and the older Simba as he returns to claim the throne. It's amazing how all older Disney movies like this are remarkably similar in terms of plot structure. In The Lion King, the villain, Scar, takes power and the hero, Simba, must combat the villain in a battle, thereafter he is victorious and all the lionesses praise him as their king. But would it be the classic Disney movie without the final scenes where a heterosexual marriage is present, and a family is born that lives happily ever after as the circle of life continues. I think the Circle of Life is Disney's way of saying that heterosexual marriage and the gender norms present in the movie are supposed to be repeated and are the right way to lead your life so things go well in your society. It's just all too familiar from one movie to the next, and while I personally love the Lion King, it's not hard to notice what Disney is trying to get at in terms of its plot. It's all too normal and all too conforming, where the main character who is a male has to grow to be bigger and stronger so that he can find his strength and "roar" to finally be able to combat the villain of the movie. Do more Disney, and be more progressive.

Parks Worth It After Break of $100 Barrier?

Disney's recent hike in prices has many talking about how attractive Disney will continue to look with a ticket price over $100. Many say the price will discourage attendance to the parks, but this writer seems to think otherwise. I inititally thought the prices would cause a decline in park attendance,but this man really pointed out a lot of key features that make Disney a unique experience that is worth the price. Very interesting read.  http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-disney-is-a-bargain-even-at-105-a-day-2015-02-26

A New Disney Renaissance?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865622942/6Big-Hero-67-6Feast7-Oscars-make-case-for-second-Disney-renaissance.html

Little Mermaid

The similarities in the outcomes of the movies Cinderella, Snow White, and The Little Mermaid are just blatant, and all keep the theme of happily ever after, and quick and easy romance moving along in the minds of our youth. Cinderella received her salvation from a Prince who sweeps her off her feet, and Snow White receives her saving from a true love kiss, Ariel's salvation is none too different when she suddenly becomes human to be with the man she loves, which her father is suddenly okay with at this point. All of these Disney stories depict sad women who are helpless in many ways, and their only hope of getting out of the situation is to find a man. Men seem to be the key to success and the key to happiness, and I wonder what message this sends young women when they watch movies like The Little Mermaid. Not to mention that all of these female protagonists fall deeply in love after a few minutes, if not seconds, with a man they have never met, or had a conversation with. True love at first sight might exist in the world of Disney's fairytales, but it's not realistic, and it isn't helping young women's perception of relationships and love: that love will come find you at an early age (prior to 18 in Ariel's case, which is absurd), no work is involved, and you might have to change yourself so a man will come and find you. Particularly in The Little Mermaid, Ariel has to make really tough, unrealistic, old fashioned decisions, in order to stay with this man she just met. She has to forfeit her beautiful voice to get legs, and chooses her husband completely over her father; examples that just aren't really compatible with real world love affairs. It just damages young girl's expectations for how their love lives are supposed to play out.

Snow White

Watching Snow White, I can see many similarities between it and Cinderella. The maidens are both depicted as beautiful young girls who can sing really well, and who are both maids suppressed by their evil older mother or stepmother. They both have a man who they meet who is willing to sweep them away, but the mom ruins the plan and is jealous of the potential of the young girl. The similarities and outcomes are pretty much the same, or at least pretty similar in the way that there is a heterosexual marriage and they live happily ever after. But in Snow White it's interesting to see the stereotypes that Zipes points out in his essay, where the dwarves all work in the mines and go out to their jobs, while the women, Snow White, stays at the cottage and tends to the house. I would argue that it is also a bit sexist pertaining to the intelligence of Snow White as well, who is portrayed as a bit dumb when she cannot follow the dwarves' instructions and continues to make the same mistakes. It's interesting how all the heroines are portrayed as well. They are all beautiful princesses, while the ones who oppose them are typically significantly less attractive and ugly. Both Snow White and Cinderella conform to gender stereotypes and are depicted as having high voices, great singing talent, and a charming feminine touch with cooking and with animals.

Spell Bound

Zipes breaks down the history of the fairy tale, from its oral beginnings to the animated stories we are exposed to in contemporary entertainment. It's really interesting to read about the descriptions of the transitions of the fairy tale, as it was written down and eventually made into film. I agreed with most of what Zipes said about the exclusiveness of the written tale, as most poorer folk were not literate, but I disagree with how terrible he depicts Disney as. Zipes complains about the writing down of the tales, and how they changed the nature of the tale and the communal aspect of telling them, but he seems to make Disney out as a monster, when he only did the same thing as those who wrote the fairy tales down. But when people wrote the tales down, and they became exclusive to the elite, the same did not happen with Disney. When he took the written tales, he made modifications, just like those who wrote them down in the first place. He made modifications and put them on the screen for all to see, and it did not make the tales more exclusive, but instead made them more available because more children would rather see the animated movie version than read the tale. Disney made them more enjoyable and friendlier to children, thus he made them more acceptable. Disney did not do anything that hadn't been done before, but only moved the tales to a different medium to satisfy changing times and preferences. Zipes does make a great argument about the damaging effects and the gender stereotypes in Disney films and the tales themselves though. By animating those films, Disney perpetuated the gender stereotypes in the films, like the domestication of women and the dependence upon men. Most Disney films in the past like Snow White and Cinderella depict the heroines as dependent upon men to rescue them from their perilous situation, and can never independently get themselves out of the predicament. While the perpetuation of the tales can be blamed on Disney, the transformation of the tales into film was nothing revolutionary, but was only a different form of transition, like those who decided to write down the oral tales.

Timeless Figure

The "Masks of Mickey Mouse" seem to slip through time, and are reincarnated throughout multiple generations and cultures. Brockway asserts that Disney's creation seems to touch on, and embody an archetypal figure that exists within the human psyche. Somehow Mickey Mouse has grasped everyone's love and attention, and this connection does not exist solely in one generation, but multiple. Brockway falsely predicted that Mickey would lose popularity after transition into the 21st century, and while many new Disney movies hold children's attention in this modern era, Mickey Mouse still exists as the symbolic owner of the Disney corporation. Mickey Mouse was able to transition from one era to the next, and possessed a remarkable ability to play different roles that sympathized with many different types of audiences, both young and old. His magical character,  existence as a mouse, and somewhat humorous stature gave Mickey Mouse an amiable and enrapturing aura. It had never crossed my mind to think if Walt Disney's little character as something bigger than just that, a character. But it seems that Mickey Mouse is the one fictional character who has held people's hearts closest for the longest time since he was drawn. I loved Mickey Mouse as a child, and I still find a connection with him today. Even as a child, I somehow knew that Mickey was related to fun I would experience at the parks. I believed that Mickey somehow owned all the different rides, and I knew it was Mickey's theme park. Disney's creation seemed to come to life in different forms that traveled with me as I grew from a toddler into a young teen, and Mickey's luster seemed untarnished. I believe that Brockway is correct. There's something special about the little mouse in the read shorts and giant ears.

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2015/01/24/disney-ticket-prices-to-increase-again-in-february

Wasko's Rant

Any aware person can see the truth behind Wasko's words in "Challenging Disney Myths," and the intelligent person would understand many of the myths she points out in her article, but this does not have to detract from the fun and love that surrounds Disney and its products. Like any story over time, details change and ordinarily simple statements turn into extreme exaggerations. This transformation is no different than the details surrounding the rise of Walt Disney the man, and I do not believe he can be criticized for the progression of his name because he possessed no knowledge of how immensely his actions would project onto the world stage. Wasko never touched on a key point that I believe to be extremely pertinent to the discussion of credit claiming, and how Disney's name arose as the predominant actor in the rise of the empire. This point is simply that Walt Disney shares the same name as his company, and thus the two would naturally be connected, and the magic and fervor that would come to be associated with Disney world would also emblazon the life of the man after whom the empire was named.
     Wasko also mentions a few key irregularities between Disney's personal life and the messages the company seems to put forth to its audience. She implies that Disney is a hypocrite, and a money-making mogul who only seeks to take advantage of small portions of his life to sympathize with the greater American public, but I see this as a harsh judgement of a man who quite possibly could have wished those portions of his life played a larger role. Disney's unstable situation at home growing up could have encouraged him to want to push family ideals, also indicative of his rural sympathies, which tend to rely on family more so than city life, which can be quite individualistic.
     The biggest issue I raise with Wasko is that while all of this might be factually correct, it does not mean we cannot partake in the joy that surrounds the Disney empire. For some, the disagreement with Disney's values may drive them away from anything that has the Disney label attached to it, but for many such as myself, Disney is actually extremely enjoyable. Of course Disney is a money-making institution, and how can we expect any entertainment corporation to be wholly philanthropic? Disney is an intelligent company who tries to maximize their audience, but if they bring fun in doing so, then I fail to see where the problems with Disney lie. As the Modern Age extends, our nation changes and so does Disney in its efforts to diversify its films and continue to make childhood fun and magical like it should be. Disney has shown tendencies to identify with traditional American values because that is where public opinion was oriented, and so that is where Disney made an audience. In recent years, public opinion has begun to swing and change, and so will Disney.

Why I chose to Enroll in Decoding Disney

Disney has been an integral part of my childhood development, from the movies I watched as young boy to the annual trips I would take to Disney with my family every year for Spring Break. My grandfather had purchased a large amount of Disney points years ago, and as Disney's value continued to rise, so did the value of my grandfather's points. With these points, he would take the whole family to Disney World every year, and the tradition has continued with my little cousins. I have traveled to Orlando over twenty times, and I know almost everything there is to know about the Disney theme park experience in Florida. I took the opportunity to enroll in this class to learn and discover more about the influences I received as a child, and to better understand the shaping mechanisms of my early development. Disney played such a giant role throughout my life, that I jumped at the opportunity to dissect and analyze something that was so important in my life.