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.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
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?
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.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
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.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
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.
Friday, March 13, 2015
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)