I enjoyed The Princess and The Frog because it was fairly different from the previous Disney films and I'm not just referring to the princess in this film. Personally, I get a little bored of the typical hero and heroine falling in love at first sight and having a happily ever after. In this film, Tiana shows little interest in boys and would rather work to get her dream restaurant and fulfill the dream she shared with her dad. It was a nice change. Even though she does end up marrying Naveen, at least they have some proper interaction with each other before all of a sudden discovering that they love each other. They actually bond beforehand and it makes the ending of this movie more special.
On top of that, the supporting characters were more endearing than those in previous films. Louis, the alligator, and Ray, the firefly, are actually funny and not in the typical Disney way where bad things happen to them to make the audience laugh. Their personalities and jokes are actually comedic.
I know from our readings that many critics dislike the fact that Disney made the setting a location with a real place in history without incorporating the realities of that time period in the movie. For example, they believe that Disney should have allowed Tiana to face more microaggressions so that it would have been more believable that she is a Black princess and not just a princess who happens to be black. However, that would ruin the magic that Disney films hold. These children movies are classifies as fantasy for a reason, because they provide a magical world that is better for its characters than the reality we live in. That is the very reason we enjoy Disney productions so much.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Friday, April 3, 2015
"Family, Race and Citizenship in Disney's Lilo & Stitch" by Emily Cheng
http://getitatduke.library.duke.edu/?sid=sersol&SS_jc=TC0000205289&title=Monsters%20and%20the%20Monstrous%3A%20Myths%20and%20Metaphors%20of%20Enduring%20Evil
mla citation: Scott, Niall, ed. At the Interface/Probing the Boundaries, Volume 38 : Monsters and the Monstrous : Myths and Metaphors of Enduring Evil. Amsterdam, NLD: Editions Rodopi, 2007. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 3 April 2015.
"While discussions of Disney have often focused on the relationship between the corporation and the critic, in this paper my method is to address the multiple and often contradictory meanings produced by the film by considering its receptions found in print and online reviews, production, and the text itself." (123-124)
p 125 end of first paragraph, examples of the references to other cultural sites por favor?
"While in some overt ways the film's content, production, and reception may seem to serve as media for transnational tourist industry, it also sets up a discussion of the entwinement of the tourism industry with representations of exoticized culture as well as universal family values." (126)
So from this, it sounds like Cheng believes that the Hawaiian culture portrayed in Lilo & Stitch is proof of how cultures are advertised as "exotic" in order to gather interest yet they also need to portray some "good" quality, such as universal family values, to make it familiar enough for a visitor to feel comfortable there. She goes on to suggest that the production team of this movie tried to sell a superficial idea of the Hawaiian culture by claiming they researched it thoroughly but really they just said this to increase marketability.
I found it interesting that she claims the reason the family in this film is female oriented is because Hawaii is typically described as a "'Pacific woman'", I always thought it was weird that they focused this movie on two orphaned females but I just thought they were trying to emphasize the strength of their bond. When I actually take a moment to think about it, I realized that the majority of the character are females such as Lilo, Nani, Nani's potential employers, and Lilo's "friends" (we all know they kind of suck). I wonder if Pleakley dressing up as a woman adds to this "feminine" vibe that Hawaii is supposed to give off.
I then found it really interesting how she pointed out that the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau (HVCB) signed a $1.7 million deal with the Disney company to promote Hawaiian culture at the same time that the movie was released which was coincidentally in 2002, when tourism profits were at a low because of the tragedy on September 11, 2001.
Cheng actually appears to have strong evidence that while this movie does promote the idea of family, the reason for this message is not as heart warming as one would think. The act of forcing Stitch to basically become a dog and demanding for him to become a "model citizen" symbolizes the act of becoming a naturalized citizen in order to be accepted into society and by comparing him to a dog, it makes his character more familiar and lovable than as an alien. She also believes that the usage of Elvis Presley as Stitch's role model sends a message of American culture, patriotism and again markets Hawaii as prime tourist destination.
Her final point indicates that even though Stitch was accepted into the family, the fact remains that he is an alien which is why they adopted him as a dog and even at the end when he perform more "humanly" duties like cooking and cleaning, those are similar roles to those of current immigrants in America that are referred by some as "aliens".
I think Cheng's writing could help me bring in an aspect of how family is such a fundamental part of American cultural and its idea of belonging as citizens in the form of a happy family. Cheng sounds educated in her work which is why I think I had an easier time following and understanding her argument.
mla citation: Scott, Niall, ed. At the Interface/Probing the Boundaries, Volume 38 : Monsters and the Monstrous : Myths and Metaphors of Enduring Evil. Amsterdam, NLD: Editions Rodopi, 2007. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 3 April 2015.
"While discussions of Disney have often focused on the relationship between the corporation and the critic, in this paper my method is to address the multiple and often contradictory meanings produced by the film by considering its receptions found in print and online reviews, production, and the text itself." (123-124)
p 125 end of first paragraph, examples of the references to other cultural sites por favor?
"While in some overt ways the film's content, production, and reception may seem to serve as media for transnational tourist industry, it also sets up a discussion of the entwinement of the tourism industry with representations of exoticized culture as well as universal family values." (126)
So from this, it sounds like Cheng believes that the Hawaiian culture portrayed in Lilo & Stitch is proof of how cultures are advertised as "exotic" in order to gather interest yet they also need to portray some "good" quality, such as universal family values, to make it familiar enough for a visitor to feel comfortable there. She goes on to suggest that the production team of this movie tried to sell a superficial idea of the Hawaiian culture by claiming they researched it thoroughly but really they just said this to increase marketability.
I found it interesting that she claims the reason the family in this film is female oriented is because Hawaii is typically described as a "'Pacific woman'", I always thought it was weird that they focused this movie on two orphaned females but I just thought they were trying to emphasize the strength of their bond. When I actually take a moment to think about it, I realized that the majority of the character are females such as Lilo, Nani, Nani's potential employers, and Lilo's "friends" (we all know they kind of suck). I wonder if Pleakley dressing up as a woman adds to this "feminine" vibe that Hawaii is supposed to give off.
I then found it really interesting how she pointed out that the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau (HVCB) signed a $1.7 million deal with the Disney company to promote Hawaiian culture at the same time that the movie was released which was coincidentally in 2002, when tourism profits were at a low because of the tragedy on September 11, 2001.
Cheng actually appears to have strong evidence that while this movie does promote the idea of family, the reason for this message is not as heart warming as one would think. The act of forcing Stitch to basically become a dog and demanding for him to become a "model citizen" symbolizes the act of becoming a naturalized citizen in order to be accepted into society and by comparing him to a dog, it makes his character more familiar and lovable than as an alien. She also believes that the usage of Elvis Presley as Stitch's role model sends a message of American culture, patriotism and again markets Hawaii as prime tourist destination.
Her final point indicates that even though Stitch was accepted into the family, the fact remains that he is an alien which is why they adopted him as a dog and even at the end when he perform more "humanly" duties like cooking and cleaning, those are similar roles to those of current immigrants in America that are referred by some as "aliens".
I think Cheng's writing could help me bring in an aspect of how family is such a fundamental part of American cultural and its idea of belonging as citizens in the form of a happy family. Cheng sounds educated in her work which is why I think I had an easier time following and understanding her argument.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Cannibals and Coons: Blackness in the Early Days of Walt Disney by Kheli R. Willetts
Overall, I can really see where Willetts is coming from with her disappointment in Disney's inability to portray "the Other, in this case, African, Latino, Asian and First Nations Diasporas" as characters that could be seen equal to Mickey Mouse and the gang (Minnie, Donald, Goofy and so on). However I think some of her examples are a bit weak and even when do they make sense, she only points them out and does not thoroughly explain them. For example, she explains how in the short The Grocery Boy, Mickey is chasing Pluto and while wearing the Napolean statue, he goes from "conqueror to coon". It is clear that this happens yet Willetts does not explain what this implies. It's just something that happens.
She then goes on to talk about Trader Mickey and how the natives are supposed to be scary "wild-eyed Africans". I can totally agree with her when she says that they are clearly being connected to primates and therefore putting forth the message that Africans are just like animals and can be treated as such, which as any decent human being knows, is wrong. Where I find fault with her argument is that she calls the natives cannibals due to the number of skulls in their habitat. I watched the cartoon and those definitely look like human skulls. Cannibalism can either refer to humans that eat human flesh or any animal that eats its own species. If we are to believe this cartoon where ever character is an animal, then why are there human skulls? Why is she identifying the natives as cannibals when those are clearly not skulls of the same species because primate skulls are distinctly different. That the natives try to eat Mickey and Pluto are even further proof that they are NOT cannibals. I think her argument may have gained something by including the fact that Africans were being portrayed as primates who attack and eat humans rather than jut calling them cannibals.
Her examples from Fantasia and Dumbo seem stronger to me which may be why they come up towards the end of her essay rather than the beginning. Sunflower's name as well as her being part donkey is such a subtle way of making her one of the Others that it's easy to see how Disney got away with it and why people with mindsets similar to Willetts are so offended.
I really enjoyed her final sentences. My favorite was "I imagine a blockbuster film featuring everyday people - Latinas without sass, Asians without choppy English and Africans without rhythm or rage". I was honestly just imagining something like that while watching The Princess and The Frog. I was wondering why there can't be a diversity in characters but then it occurred to me. If Disney were to portray a "sassy white girl" or anything that goes against the norm there'd be an outcry of how Disney does not even honor stereotypes correctly or critics will go and analyze who voices the characters. I doubt Disney and its critics will ever be appeased.
She then goes on to talk about Trader Mickey and how the natives are supposed to be scary "wild-eyed Africans". I can totally agree with her when she says that they are clearly being connected to primates and therefore putting forth the message that Africans are just like animals and can be treated as such, which as any decent human being knows, is wrong. Where I find fault with her argument is that she calls the natives cannibals due to the number of skulls in their habitat. I watched the cartoon and those definitely look like human skulls. Cannibalism can either refer to humans that eat human flesh or any animal that eats its own species. If we are to believe this cartoon where ever character is an animal, then why are there human skulls? Why is she identifying the natives as cannibals when those are clearly not skulls of the same species because primate skulls are distinctly different. That the natives try to eat Mickey and Pluto are even further proof that they are NOT cannibals. I think her argument may have gained something by including the fact that Africans were being portrayed as primates who attack and eat humans rather than jut calling them cannibals.
Her examples from Fantasia and Dumbo seem stronger to me which may be why they come up towards the end of her essay rather than the beginning. Sunflower's name as well as her being part donkey is such a subtle way of making her one of the Others that it's easy to see how Disney got away with it and why people with mindsets similar to Willetts are so offended.
I really enjoyed her final sentences. My favorite was "I imagine a blockbuster film featuring everyday people - Latinas without sass, Asians without choppy English and Africans without rhythm or rage". I was honestly just imagining something like that while watching The Princess and The Frog. I was wondering why there can't be a diversity in characters but then it occurred to me. If Disney were to portray a "sassy white girl" or anything that goes against the norm there'd be an outcry of how Disney does not even honor stereotypes correctly or critics will go and analyze who voices the characters. I doubt Disney and its critics will ever be appeased.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Response to "Home is where the heart is" by Dennis Tyler
I did not enjoy this essay. Dennis Tyler may have thought his argument was clear and I would have agreed since he started it off nicely. He clearly stated in two questions what he was going to be inspecting: "First, how has Pixar achieved [their] success? [...] Second, what reality is Pixar presenting?". Yet it felt like he diverged from these questions.
I was following his statements about Pixar's ability to animate but once he began comparing Pixar to Disney it seems like he became passive aggressive. The way he talked about Lasseter, it's like Tyler was saying Lasseter didn't give Disney animators the credit they deserve. Yet he would turn around and seem to give Lasseter a (still condescending) pat on the back for his work. Honestly, I think it took away from his argument when he went through the whole essay without stating whether he liked or hated Up/Pixar.
He then went on to talk about Carl and his "suppression" of Ellie's personality which I just did not see at all. Tyler talks about Carl's concern for Russel, Kevin, and Dug as if it were not real or enough. He made it seem like Carl was being superficial and I think Tyler's final sentence seemed to think a "family of choice" is no good if it's patriarchal because that's too comforting. I don't understand how the message of wanting a typical patriarchal accepting family is worse than the "damsel in distress" message that Disney's princess movies present to their audience.
I was following his statements about Pixar's ability to animate but once he began comparing Pixar to Disney it seems like he became passive aggressive. The way he talked about Lasseter, it's like Tyler was saying Lasseter didn't give Disney animators the credit they deserve. Yet he would turn around and seem to give Lasseter a (still condescending) pat on the back for his work. Honestly, I think it took away from his argument when he went through the whole essay without stating whether he liked or hated Up/Pixar.
He then went on to talk about Carl and his "suppression" of Ellie's personality which I just did not see at all. Tyler talks about Carl's concern for Russel, Kevin, and Dug as if it were not real or enough. He made it seem like Carl was being superficial and I think Tyler's final sentence seemed to think a "family of choice" is no good if it's patriarchal because that's too comforting. I don't understand how the message of wanting a typical patriarchal accepting family is worse than the "damsel in distress" message that Disney's princess movies present to their audience.
"Disney Dude" by Bruce C Steele
This article came from The Advocate magazine on July 2nd, 2002. It talks about Dean DeBlois who was one of the co-directors of Lilo & Stitch. I think this would be a really good popular source because it's about one of the people that actually made the movie. I think the reason this article focuses on DeBlois and not Chris Sanders, the other co-director, is because DeBlois is gay. He could have felt more strongly about this film and bring in a different perspective when explaining how this film was animated. This article also supports the idea that Lilo & Stitch is a movie about family and how you can make your own as long as you treat the friends you find like family. There is no necessity for a blood bond as long as you have trust and love for each other. This might not be a scholarly article but as a popular source that expresses this view, I think it makes the opinion stronger. I think this article could help me a lot for my next essay.
Up, It Will Get You In Your Feelings
Sometimes, I think Pixar movies don't get as much attention as they deserve. Pixar movies definitely promote messages that are more diverse than the Disney princess fairy tale. Granted, Disney is bigger. It had to be in order to buy Pixar, I just don't understand why Disney does not do as many family-themed movies as they could. It might be because they have different animators with different mindsets since they work for 2 different companies but I don't see why Disney doesn't take advantage of having Pixar be a part of their name.
I honestly love Up, all the protagonist characters are more lovable and they don't get as annoying as some of the secondary or primary characters do in some of the Disney movies. Russel, Dug, Kevin and Carl are all funny in their own way and are necessary in making the story move along. In some Disney movies, the characters get annoying like Ariel, Flounder, and Zazu. I think it makes a huge difference that the main character in Pixar films is not a girl searching for love or a hero. In Up, Carl is the main character and he's just trying avoid having to live in a nursing home. He's not some bratty teenager. Yet there is still fantasy in this film, like being able to fly a house with balloons or having a herd of talking dogs.
Sure the beginning of the movie is a bit traumatizing if you're not ready but it definitely reels you in and gets you more attached to the storyline. You become invested in the movie which is why Pixar productions are so successful. Watching Up made me realize why Lilo and Stitch is my favorite Disney movie. It focuses on family, and it is not one made up solely of "blood" members. It brings in outsiders and characters that you wouldn't expect to work so well together. Lilo and Stitch find each other while Carl, Russel, and Dug find one another and become like a family. It just gives a better message than some Disney movies.
I honestly love Up, all the protagonist characters are more lovable and they don't get as annoying as some of the secondary or primary characters do in some of the Disney movies. Russel, Dug, Kevin and Carl are all funny in their own way and are necessary in making the story move along. In some Disney movies, the characters get annoying like Ariel, Flounder, and Zazu. I think it makes a huge difference that the main character in Pixar films is not a girl searching for love or a hero. In Up, Carl is the main character and he's just trying avoid having to live in a nursing home. He's not some bratty teenager. Yet there is still fantasy in this film, like being able to fly a house with balloons or having a herd of talking dogs.
Sure the beginning of the movie is a bit traumatizing if you're not ready but it definitely reels you in and gets you more attached to the storyline. You become invested in the movie which is why Pixar productions are so successful. Watching Up made me realize why Lilo and Stitch is my favorite Disney movie. It focuses on family, and it is not one made up solely of "blood" members. It brings in outsiders and characters that you wouldn't expect to work so well together. Lilo and Stitch find each other while Carl, Russel, and Dug find one another and become like a family. It just gives a better message than some Disney movies.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Hakuna Matata
I found Gael Sweeney's article to be quite enjoyable and I think she did a good job in presenting a sound argument. At this point, we have read enough critical essays to where I got into the habit of expecting an outrageous claim that would make me automatically dismiss those authors' arguments. Yet, Sweeney's writing style was so conversational and witty, it made me more willing to listen to her argument. On top of that, her piece seemed like it was directed at an older audience without hinting that The Lion King is having some perverse or negative subliminal message on its younger viewers.
Sweeney knows that Disney is known for their production of "family-friendly" films that have been criticized by liberals for pushing conservative ideals, yet she also shares her observation that conservatives have steadily been increasing their complaints that Disney is becoming too liberal. I think Sweeney believes these conservative critics to be exaggerating with their complaints because I don't think she truly believes that the Disney company, as a whole, is promoting a fight against its usual theme of "heteronormativity". It seems that her goal is point out that Disney is capable of producing something that can be interpreted as homosexual, and that is certainly how she interprets Timon and Pumbaa in The Lion King.
There were identifiable parts that made her argument more believable. She is able to use her examples to prove several points such as using instances of their actions to prove they are over-dramatic, comic, opposed to the norm, and at times, outright fabulous. Sweeney points out that Timon and Pumbaa like to dress in costumes that could be seen as "cross dressing" but what strengthens her argument is that they do this often without presenting the possibility that they actually have heterosexual interests. In other movies, such as Mulan, when the guys cross dress, they have already explicitly stated, or will in the near future, that they are looking for a heterosexual relationship. Personally, the fact that Nathan Lane voiced Timon and Ernie Sabella voiced Pumbaa led me to think that Timon could certainly be seen as gay, but Pumbaa not so much. She stated herself that Timon and Pumbaa were not created until Lane and Sabella inspired those characters to come to life. That would mean Timon was more like Lane, who was gay in real life, while Pumbaa could be straight since that's what Sabella was.
It could be said that Timon and Pumbaa simply share a "bromance" but I think it's important to keep in mind that this movie was made before "bromance" was acceptable and popular like it is today. I think Lane might have been purposely making Timon gay while Sabella just did his thing with Pumbaa. The producers/animators of The Lion King just went with it, recognizing it as humor value and hoping that would outweigh its "hidden message".
Oh, and here's a meme I didn't expect to find, already made that came with the caption: "This 'funny because it's true' statement".
Sweeney knows that Disney is known for their production of "family-friendly" films that have been criticized by liberals for pushing conservative ideals, yet she also shares her observation that conservatives have steadily been increasing their complaints that Disney is becoming too liberal. I think Sweeney believes these conservative critics to be exaggerating with their complaints because I don't think she truly believes that the Disney company, as a whole, is promoting a fight against its usual theme of "heteronormativity". It seems that her goal is point out that Disney is capable of producing something that can be interpreted as homosexual, and that is certainly how she interprets Timon and Pumbaa in The Lion King.
There were identifiable parts that made her argument more believable. She is able to use her examples to prove several points such as using instances of their actions to prove they are over-dramatic, comic, opposed to the norm, and at times, outright fabulous. Sweeney points out that Timon and Pumbaa like to dress in costumes that could be seen as "cross dressing" but what strengthens her argument is that they do this often without presenting the possibility that they actually have heterosexual interests. In other movies, such as Mulan, when the guys cross dress, they have already explicitly stated, or will in the near future, that they are looking for a heterosexual relationship. Personally, the fact that Nathan Lane voiced Timon and Ernie Sabella voiced Pumbaa led me to think that Timon could certainly be seen as gay, but Pumbaa not so much. She stated herself that Timon and Pumbaa were not created until Lane and Sabella inspired those characters to come to life. That would mean Timon was more like Lane, who was gay in real life, while Pumbaa could be straight since that's what Sabella was.
It could be said that Timon and Pumbaa simply share a "bromance" but I think it's important to keep in mind that this movie was made before "bromance" was acceptable and popular like it is today. I think Lane might have been purposely making Timon gay while Sabella just did his thing with Pumbaa. The producers/animators of The Lion King just went with it, recognizing it as humor value and hoping that would outweigh its "hidden message".
Oh, and here's a meme I didn't expect to find, already made that came with the caption: "This 'funny because it's true' statement".
Sweeney has believers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)