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.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
The Lion King Film Response
Watching The Lion King was definitely like taking a trip down memory lane. I don't think I've seen that movie in years but I was surprised by how well I remembered all the details. I remember which scenes made me cry as kid and which ones made me laugh. I was an emotional child and I remember being teased for always crying when Simba is asking Mufasa to wake up. Even now, I still get choked up. I'm just better at hiding it now than I was back then. This just goes to show that no matter what Disney critics have to say, the Disney company clearly knows how to do their job. The fact that teenagers, young adults, and parents have no problem watching these movies and actually enjoy the nostalgic feeling they get from watching these movies proves these productions are worth the praise they receive.
After reading so many articles criticizing Disney movies, it's kind of funny how easy it is to find the particular actions and characteristics that displease the critics. I still think children don't see as much into these movies like critics would have us believe but I am finding it easier to see their point of view. For example, it was easy to see how Disney does tend to give secondary characters a single trait to recognize them by, such as Zazu being the overbearing assistant to the king, just like Sebastian was in The Little Mermaid. Also, this time around I decided to pay some more attention to Scar and when his song came on, the beat and his movements definitely convinced me to give Amanda Putnam's argument another chance. The beat just sounded like something that you would find as the background music to a drag show on TV. However, there were scenes that definitely went against her argument such as when Scar still called himself Simba's uncle. Despite Scar admitting that he is weaker, he still tried to fight Simba at the end in order stay King.
I think watching these Disney movies again is helpful because readers tend to defend Disney against its critics since they have such fond memories. Yet most people tend to go a long time before watching many Disney movies again, and they miss the scenes where these critics find their evidence. By re-watching the movies, I think many viewers would be surprised at how much concrete evidence critics have for their argument. They might put more thought into how much they want to promote Disney and the possible ideals that Disney hints at in its movies.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Transgendered Villains
Amanda Putnam claims in her piece "Mean Ladies: Transgendered Villains in Disney Films" that Disney's practice of characterizing villains through mean as well as transgender characteristics is dangerous. Disney's movies are commonly used for entertainment on family nights, especially when toddlers and young children are involved. Putnam believes that by associating villainy with those who step out of the typical heterosexual role, Disney is subconsciously telling its viewers that it is okay to expect the worst from those that may be something other than heterosexual, that it may even be acceptable to treat them as less than human beings because those people can turn out bad, character-wise.
Putnam has no problem with there being individuals in the Disney movies that could be characterized as transgender. Her problem is that Disney only assigns those characteristics to the villains, as she herself writes that "when gender-bending traits are assigned strictly to villains, then tension arises in terms of determining what, exactly, Disney is preaching so heartily and so frequently to its preschool choir". It seems that Putnam would be all for these transgender characters as it would bring diversity into these movies which are often among the first that children view as they grow up. However, when this diversity is only given to those who cause problems in the movies, it can become a message to these children's subconscious that they must handle those diverse character carefully because it may turn out that they are villains. Personally, I can agree with this point because I can see where Putnam is coming from. If almost every movie that you watch shows villains as being transgender, you may begin to believe that message. However, I do not agree with the fact that she believes actual children will be so affected by this message.
Putnam mentions that her daughter tends to call the villains "mean ladies", yet I think Putnam extends this category too far when she starts including characters such as Scar, Jafar, and Ratcliffe. As a child, it is easy to recognize women in Disney movies because of their figure and even when it is not the ideal "feminine" figure, the clothes help identify the gender as well. It is Putnam herself that throws in the male characters that tend to act flamboyant, but I find it hard to believe that a child would actually see it that way. A child would most likely find those characters weird or just see them as weaker which would work fine with the fact that they will lose against the hero/heroine. Like other critics, I feel that Putnam believes children see more into these Disney movies than they actually do.
I will say I agree with Putnam's disapproval of these transgender traits being given only to the villains. Putnam states "many of the female Disney villains are subtly masculine - their faces, body shape, and behavior lend 'mannish' traits to their characters". Putnam is quick to note that the stepmothers are thin, making them appear less motherly and less attractive than the heroine. Cinderella's stepsisters have boyish faces and are flat chested as well as clumsy, all to make them appear ugly compared to Cinderella, our heroine. Yet it is not clear why Disney seems to believe that having "mannish" women is the easiest way to make them ugly and unfavorable. Why not use a trait that is unpleasant for all genders, such as acne, a bad haircut, or a certain state of deteriorated hygiene? I think this "transgender = villain" message is much more dangerous for older audiences and Disney could improve on that because there is no need to associate meanness with being transgender.
Putnam has no problem with there being individuals in the Disney movies that could be characterized as transgender. Her problem is that Disney only assigns those characteristics to the villains, as she herself writes that "when gender-bending traits are assigned strictly to villains, then tension arises in terms of determining what, exactly, Disney is preaching so heartily and so frequently to its preschool choir". It seems that Putnam would be all for these transgender characters as it would bring diversity into these movies which are often among the first that children view as they grow up. However, when this diversity is only given to those who cause problems in the movies, it can become a message to these children's subconscious that they must handle those diverse character carefully because it may turn out that they are villains. Personally, I can agree with this point because I can see where Putnam is coming from. If almost every movie that you watch shows villains as being transgender, you may begin to believe that message. However, I do not agree with the fact that she believes actual children will be so affected by this message.
Putnam mentions that her daughter tends to call the villains "mean ladies", yet I think Putnam extends this category too far when she starts including characters such as Scar, Jafar, and Ratcliffe. As a child, it is easy to recognize women in Disney movies because of their figure and even when it is not the ideal "feminine" figure, the clothes help identify the gender as well. It is Putnam herself that throws in the male characters that tend to act flamboyant, but I find it hard to believe that a child would actually see it that way. A child would most likely find those characters weird or just see them as weaker which would work fine with the fact that they will lose against the hero/heroine. Like other critics, I feel that Putnam believes children see more into these Disney movies than they actually do.
I will say I agree with Putnam's disapproval of these transgender traits being given only to the villains. Putnam states "many of the female Disney villains are subtly masculine - their faces, body shape, and behavior lend 'mannish' traits to their characters". Putnam is quick to note that the stepmothers are thin, making them appear less motherly and less attractive than the heroine. Cinderella's stepsisters have boyish faces and are flat chested as well as clumsy, all to make them appear ugly compared to Cinderella, our heroine. Yet it is not clear why Disney seems to believe that having "mannish" women is the easiest way to make them ugly and unfavorable. Why not use a trait that is unpleasant for all genders, such as acne, a bad haircut, or a certain state of deteriorated hygiene? I think this "transgender = villain" message is much more dangerous for older audiences and Disney could improve on that because there is no need to associate meanness with being transgender.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Roberta Trites, Your Argument is Unpleasant
In this piece by Roberta Trites, it was clear from the start that she is not a fan of Disney's "The Little Mermaid". She claims that although the original story by Hans Christian Andersen has a patriarchal feel about it that looks down on women condescendingly, Disney's version is worse.
Either way, I kept on reading to see what she had to say and it just did not get any better. I don't understand why some critics insist on putting a Freudian spin on their analysis! Trites complains about Disney's version teaching children sexist values yet how is she doing any better by pointing out all these so-called attempts of producing "gynophobic" images and comparing everything to a phallus? Honestly, I find Trites' argument more disturbing than the movie. I think the only argument I agreed with her over was at the very beginning which was that "If children are needlessly repressed, they may rebel by developing obsessive behaviors". However, she used that to describe Triton's behavior which I don't think was too overboard because he genuinely believes that humans are dangerous and he was just trying to take care of Ariel. I think Ariel's own stupidity as a teenager is more to blame for her obsession with humans, including Eric. Her claim that females are dependent on males, and that fathers don't grant their daughters independence , actually seems believable but again, I don't think that's the lesson that children take away from the movie. The fact that Ariel was able to rebel against her father to be with Eric shows she could have easily rebelled for her independence.
I may not have agreed with Trites' argument but I do give her credit for sticking to what she believed and that she found enough examples and scenes to support her argument to a reasonably believable level.
In the beginning of Trite's argument, I could see where she was coming from, I found that many of her points seemed similar to the thoughts that I'd had when reading the original version. Hers was just written better. However, it was easy to pick up her bias for the original and bias against the remake which I think took away from her argument by making it weaker and less professional. Her facts were usually right but she would twist them to fit her view. For example, she made it seem as if the original mermaid only wanted to be human to gain a soul. She makes it seems as if the original mermaid never acted obsessed with the prince, as if Ariel was the only one with an obsession. However, the original mermaid constantly goes to watch the prince even after saving him, thinking about how handsome he is and such. I feel like Trites became so engrossed in her disapproval of Ariel that she began to subconsciously glorify the original mermaid. While I agreed with Trites that the original mermaid had a more noble goal at the end of her story with her quest for a soul, her piece became more of a bashing of Ariel which left me annoyed and unwilling to give her argument a chance.
Either way, I kept on reading to see what she had to say and it just did not get any better. I don't understand why some critics insist on putting a Freudian spin on their analysis! Trites complains about Disney's version teaching children sexist values yet how is she doing any better by pointing out all these so-called attempts of producing "gynophobic" images and comparing everything to a phallus? Honestly, I find Trites' argument more disturbing than the movie. I think the only argument I agreed with her over was at the very beginning which was that "If children are needlessly repressed, they may rebel by developing obsessive behaviors". However, she used that to describe Triton's behavior which I don't think was too overboard because he genuinely believes that humans are dangerous and he was just trying to take care of Ariel. I think Ariel's own stupidity as a teenager is more to blame for her obsession with humans, including Eric. Her claim that females are dependent on males, and that fathers don't grant their daughters independence , actually seems believable but again, I don't think that's the lesson that children take away from the movie. The fact that Ariel was able to rebel against her father to be with Eric shows she could have easily rebelled for her independence.
I may not have agreed with Trites' argument but I do give her credit for sticking to what she believed and that she found enough examples and scenes to support her argument to a reasonably believable level.
Reaction to The Little Mermaid (Disney Version)
It was alright. This was my first time watching the movie in almost a year but re-watching it made me realize that I had had a pretty good recollection of the movie which was good for when I was comparing it to the original story by Hans Christian Andersen. I think for this story, Disney went overboard in rewriting the plot.
Personally, I enjoyed the original story for its details and characters, even though some of those details seemed a bit more painful than necessary if it was going to be told to a child. However, he story's morals were still good. The original little mermaid was in pursuit of a the prince and a soul in the beginning but towards the end, she became focused on gaining a soul, even if it meant no prince for her. The little mermaid in the Disney version, Ariel, is focused on becoming a human to gain Eric and nothing else. I think one of the reasons this movie gets criticized a lot is because Ariel is so adamant about changing herself because she "loves" Eric. I mean, first of all, one would think that the fact that he has legs and she has a fish tail would be enough to ring a bell in her head and say "Nah Ariel, y'all are two different species. You need to chill and stick to a merman". But no, instead she seeks out Ursula in her creepy den in order to get some legs in the hopes that Eric will kiss her in three days, even though she can't talk!!
Who knows, maybe the fact that Disney promoted one species falling for another was their weird way of saying "Oh, love comes in all shapes and sizes" but that message is weakened when there is no "true love" to be seen. Ariel becomes obsessed with Eric for his looks and Eric is obsessed with Ariel's voice. Neither of those things equate to love. Therefore, I don't buy it.
I think re-watching it also made me realize why this movie was never one of my favorites, except for Sebastian's song and Ursula's song because they are catchy and I just can't resist catchy things most of the time. This is one of the few movies where the girl actually has a father figure present. Sure, Triton can be scary, especially when he is angry. I'd be scared of my dad too if he could shoot some zappy things from his trident whenever he feels like it. However, I think his concern was understandable. He claimed that humans were dangerous and when you live under the sea (hehe), of course the humans they meet are dangerous because they're usually fisherman that live to capture and kill sea-life. On top of that, humans are known for their inability to accept those that are different from them without having to run tests and experiment on those beings. If Ariel had been seen by those humans before she had a chance to to get legs, I really doubt she would have found true love or any love at all. Ariel does not see this though, she just sees her dad as someone who is being controlling and rebels against him. The scene where Triton is sitting alone in the dark saying, "What have I done?" just kills me because he was only trying to protect Ariel and she decided to act like a dumb teenage girl.
Overall, this movie is not for me. It's too superficial especially when it is compared to the original story. No me gusta.
Personally, I enjoyed the original story for its details and characters, even though some of those details seemed a bit more painful than necessary if it was going to be told to a child. However, he story's morals were still good. The original little mermaid was in pursuit of a the prince and a soul in the beginning but towards the end, she became focused on gaining a soul, even if it meant no prince for her. The little mermaid in the Disney version, Ariel, is focused on becoming a human to gain Eric and nothing else. I think one of the reasons this movie gets criticized a lot is because Ariel is so adamant about changing herself because she "loves" Eric. I mean, first of all, one would think that the fact that he has legs and she has a fish tail would be enough to ring a bell in her head and say "Nah Ariel, y'all are two different species. You need to chill and stick to a merman". But no, instead she seeks out Ursula in her creepy den in order to get some legs in the hopes that Eric will kiss her in three days, even though she can't talk!!
Who knows, maybe the fact that Disney promoted one species falling for another was their weird way of saying "Oh, love comes in all shapes and sizes" but that message is weakened when there is no "true love" to be seen. Ariel becomes obsessed with Eric for his looks and Eric is obsessed with Ariel's voice. Neither of those things equate to love. Therefore, I don't buy it.
I think re-watching it also made me realize why this movie was never one of my favorites, except for Sebastian's song and Ursula's song because they are catchy and I just can't resist catchy things most of the time. This is one of the few movies where the girl actually has a father figure present. Sure, Triton can be scary, especially when he is angry. I'd be scared of my dad too if he could shoot some zappy things from his trident whenever he feels like it. However, I think his concern was understandable. He claimed that humans were dangerous and when you live under the sea (hehe), of course the humans they meet are dangerous because they're usually fisherman that live to capture and kill sea-life. On top of that, humans are known for their inability to accept those that are different from them without having to run tests and experiment on those beings. If Ariel had been seen by those humans before she had a chance to to get legs, I really doubt she would have found true love or any love at all. Ariel does not see this though, she just sees her dad as someone who is being controlling and rebels against him. The scene where Triton is sitting alone in the dark saying, "What have I done?" just kills me because he was only trying to protect Ariel and she decided to act like a dumb teenage girl.
Overall, this movie is not for me. It's too superficial especially when it is compared to the original story. No me gusta.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Reaction to Origin of The Little Mermaid
Me gusta.
Well, me gusta minus some of the more gory details such as the little mermaid actually having her tongue cut off. (Sidenote: almost wrote "the princess" instead of the little mermaid, the power of Disney is strong. Yes, I know she is actually a princess but that was like unimportant in this story. It's in the Disney version where I personally think her being a princess is a bigger deal.)
While reading it, I definitely found myself comparing it to the movie which I haven't seen in almost a year so I'd say 85% of the details are pretty murky in my head. I tried to compare some of the bigger details, like the fact that technically she was allowed to go up to the surface and it was not a forbidden thing like in the movie. However, the original story might have been more traumatic what with the little mermaid seeing the ship sink and everyone but her prince die on her first visit to the surface. But I mean hey, you do you Hans Christian Andersen. You do you. I really enjoyed his description of the palace, gardens, and the general view of life under the sea. It sounded so pretty, I don't think Disney did it justice. (haha Justise, like Justise Winslow. GO DUKE! and gtcc.)
I also liked the meaning of this story better. Sure, the mermaid lost her voice and tail for like forever and ever and left her family like it was nothing just for this prince, but the fact that she did not end up with him kind of shows that "true love" was not her sole purpose in life. Instead, her story seemed to focus on her obtaining a soul so that she could enjoy life after death(?) in that wondrous place in the sky (so I guess heaven). Since she didn't kill her Prince, it showed that she valued life over romance. Once she became a daughter of the air and Andersen went on to describe how she could still gain a soul by finding good children, it felt like he brought a new moral to the story. It was sort of a push to get children to be good because if they were, they could help mermaids gain souls and reach heaven which I'm assuming might have been wanted during this time period (not sure though).
This story definitely had enough details to become a movie that wasn't focused on a teenager girl being a rebel for a boy that did not even remember her. However, Disney has to make its money and when true love becomes Disney's tag, that's what they're going to go with. I think a remake of this story could be good if done by the right people though so maybe that'll be an upcoming project. If only.
Well, me gusta minus some of the more gory details such as the little mermaid actually having her tongue cut off. (Sidenote: almost wrote "the princess" instead of the little mermaid, the power of Disney is strong. Yes, I know she is actually a princess but that was like unimportant in this story. It's in the Disney version where I personally think her being a princess is a bigger deal.)
While reading it, I definitely found myself comparing it to the movie which I haven't seen in almost a year so I'd say 85% of the details are pretty murky in my head. I tried to compare some of the bigger details, like the fact that technically she was allowed to go up to the surface and it was not a forbidden thing like in the movie. However, the original story might have been more traumatic what with the little mermaid seeing the ship sink and everyone but her prince die on her first visit to the surface. But I mean hey, you do you Hans Christian Andersen. You do you. I really enjoyed his description of the palace, gardens, and the general view of life under the sea. It sounded so pretty, I don't think Disney did it justice. (haha Justise, like Justise Winslow. GO DUKE! and gtcc.)
I also liked the meaning of this story better. Sure, the mermaid lost her voice and tail for like forever and ever and left her family like it was nothing just for this prince, but the fact that she did not end up with him kind of shows that "true love" was not her sole purpose in life. Instead, her story seemed to focus on her obtaining a soul so that she could enjoy life after death(?) in that wondrous place in the sky (so I guess heaven). Since she didn't kill her Prince, it showed that she valued life over romance. Once she became a daughter of the air and Andersen went on to describe how she could still gain a soul by finding good children, it felt like he brought a new moral to the story. It was sort of a push to get children to be good because if they were, they could help mermaids gain souls and reach heaven which I'm assuming might have been wanted during this time period (not sure though).
This story definitely had enough details to become a movie that wasn't focused on a teenager girl being a rebel for a boy that did not even remember her. However, Disney has to make its money and when true love becomes Disney's tag, that's what they're going to go with. I think a remake of this story could be good if done by the right people though so maybe that'll be an upcoming project. If only.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Snow White
I mostly enjoyed the Brothers' Grimm version of Snow White although I thought the end was a bit odd what with the queen having to dance in burning shoes until she died. I definitely prefer the way the Disney movie offed the queen. It was much more entertaining and went along with the plot better than the ending from the story. I thought it was interesting how many people complain that Disney tends to oversimplify the original stories and that he romanticized them but I think that was actually necessary in order to make a movie work. The original stories are supposed to be traditional and that is probably why they are so short and to the point. If they were passed down orally, I don't think it would make sense to have so many details on a short story like this.
Disney's goal with this movie though is to entertain and to make money off of these productions so it makes sense that he had to add in some details to make the story and animations run smoothly. He had some nice touches such as implying that Snow White was so sweet that all animals seem to adore her. I also enjoyed the amount of attention he placed on the dwarves. He made them more likable and endearing than they were in the original story. By making them untidy, it was more understandable as to why they took in Snow White rather than just because of her beauty. Disney's way of creating the idea of "true love" for Snow White also seems more logical than the one in the story. In the movie, the prince at least hears and sees Snow White before she falls into her slumber. The original story would have us believe that the prince simply fell in love with her for her looks and she fell for him as soon as she woke up which is just boring honestly. I find that more simplistic than Disney's modifications to the story. Overall, I am impressed with Disney's first animated movie complete with sound. Even if part of that sound is Snow White's voice which can be obnoxiously high at times.
Disney's goal with this movie though is to entertain and to make money off of these productions so it makes sense that he had to add in some details to make the story and animations run smoothly. He had some nice touches such as implying that Snow White was so sweet that all animals seem to adore her. I also enjoyed the amount of attention he placed on the dwarves. He made them more likable and endearing than they were in the original story. By making them untidy, it was more understandable as to why they took in Snow White rather than just because of her beauty. Disney's way of creating the idea of "true love" for Snow White also seems more logical than the one in the story. In the movie, the prince at least hears and sees Snow White before she falls into her slumber. The original story would have us believe that the prince simply fell in love with her for her looks and she fell for him as soon as she woke up which is just boring honestly. I find that more simplistic than Disney's modifications to the story. Overall, I am impressed with Disney's first animated movie complete with sound. Even if part of that sound is Snow White's voice which can be obnoxiously high at times.
Disney Despotism and the 1930s
Kevin Shortsleeve's goal in this piece is to find out what it is that critics truly fear about Disney. He is quick to note that he is not the first critic of Disney. He recognizes that there are many people out there that despise Disney and his tendency to oversimplify and dumb down the "traditional" stories from which Disney obtained his ideas. They call this the "Disneyfication" of these stories because it tends to make their plots more simplistic and sentimental than their authors intended. He separates himself from these critics by claiming that he is not a "Disney discontent"because he sees no problem with making movies that encourage happiness and optimism. I think that is the reason most people love Disney movies and other productions because they promote good feelings. As Shortsleeve states later in his piece, "audiences sought deliverance from a system, a place, and a time that had failed them". That is the joy of watching a film, you get distraction from whatever situation you are currently in. I think Shortsleeve's problem with Disney is that he did not incorporate those values of optimism and human aspiration into running the actual company.
I think Kevin Shortsleeve's thesis is that the real reason critics, and maybe even the general audience on a subliminal level, fear Disney is that his methods for gaining popularity for his company took advantage of the Great Depression and allowed him to get away with using political methods that would not be taken well today. Shortsleeve believes that Disney's methods went along the same lines as the political and social thoughts that led to WWII. I think that accusation is a little far fetched but I do think he has a point in saying that Disney commanded his company in a very totalitarian way. I can see what he meant by stating that Walt Disney had an "Orwellian" style management. If all of Shortsleeve's facts are true, there is plenty proof that Disney relied on surveillance, propaganda, and manipulation to maintain control of his company. The citizens of Celebration, Disney's experimental village, claim to feel watched all the time. Disney workers are scared to talk about the company and are terrified of ever being caught doing something wrong in case they get linked back to Disney and have to face those consequence as well. There is also the point that Disney and the company had a bad habit of extreme unequal pay among the workers, even those doing the exact same job. Disney had a reputation for putting down strikes and firing those who he saw as a threat. He was clearly a conservative man and although for the most part he was able to carefully word his opinions so he would not look bad, his ideals were pretty clear.
Overall, I do not think Disney's way of running his company is enough to hate him for it. He was born in a different time and tried to build a company in a time of trouble. I think Disney knew that he would have to be strict to succeed and he was not afraid to be like that. People may complain about his methods and the fact that similar ruthless methods are used today, but I can only imagine how much more complaining there would be if Disney workers were allowed to express themselves freely. The amount of complaints of service and product distribution as well as actual film plots would be unbelievable. I think another reason Disney favored these accusations is that they served as free propaganda at times. All the conversations about Disney may not have been favorable but at least he (and his company) were being talked about. He believed in his business and believed that absolute power over it was necessary for its success, despite people like Shortsleeve that disagreed with this idea.
I think Kevin Shortsleeve's thesis is that the real reason critics, and maybe even the general audience on a subliminal level, fear Disney is that his methods for gaining popularity for his company took advantage of the Great Depression and allowed him to get away with using political methods that would not be taken well today. Shortsleeve believes that Disney's methods went along the same lines as the political and social thoughts that led to WWII. I think that accusation is a little far fetched but I do think he has a point in saying that Disney commanded his company in a very totalitarian way. I can see what he meant by stating that Walt Disney had an "Orwellian" style management. If all of Shortsleeve's facts are true, there is plenty proof that Disney relied on surveillance, propaganda, and manipulation to maintain control of his company. The citizens of Celebration, Disney's experimental village, claim to feel watched all the time. Disney workers are scared to talk about the company and are terrified of ever being caught doing something wrong in case they get linked back to Disney and have to face those consequence as well. There is also the point that Disney and the company had a bad habit of extreme unequal pay among the workers, even those doing the exact same job. Disney had a reputation for putting down strikes and firing those who he saw as a threat. He was clearly a conservative man and although for the most part he was able to carefully word his opinions so he would not look bad, his ideals were pretty clear.
Overall, I do not think Disney's way of running his company is enough to hate him for it. He was born in a different time and tried to build a company in a time of trouble. I think Disney knew that he would have to be strict to succeed and he was not afraid to be like that. People may complain about his methods and the fact that similar ruthless methods are used today, but I can only imagine how much more complaining there would be if Disney workers were allowed to express themselves freely. The amount of complaints of service and product distribution as well as actual film plots would be unbelievable. I think another reason Disney favored these accusations is that they served as free propaganda at times. All the conversations about Disney may not have been favorable but at least he (and his company) were being talked about. He believed in his business and believed that absolute power over it was necessary for its success, despite people like Shortsleeve that disagreed with this idea.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Mickey Mouse Is How Old?
Mickey Mouse's first appearance was November 18, 1928. Yet he is recognized just as easily today as he was when he was first created. Elizabeth A. Lawrence's article seems to focus on the attitude of Mickey Mouse and how that has made him more lovable to the generation that saw his creation. Lawrence goes in depth on the practice of neoteny.
This practice is what allowed Mickey Mouse to be accepted by large audiences not only in the United States but all over the world as well. Neoteny is when one tries to retain juvenile or "cute" characteristics on a being, whether it is a cartoon or a real animal. This is obvious in Mickey with his round figure made up of mostly circles as well. He has big eyes and big ears that just make him more adorable to many which only boosts his popularity which is what Walt Disney wanted of course. Neoteny can be seen in everyday pets, especially those teacup dogs that everyone just seems to fawn over. Many cartoons, not just Disney ones, hold those childlike characteristics as well such as Stitch (Experiment 626 from Lilo and Stitch) and Toothless (the Night Fury dragon from How To Train Your Dragon which is a Dreamworks production). If you walk into any Disney store today (not just the ones in the theme parks), it is obvious that all the stuffed animals are made to look cuddly with their huge puppy eyes. This brings out our instinct to protect that is evident as early in our toddler years as well as when we are adults. It is also a demonstration of human's natural obsession with youth and by enjoying cartoons that exhibit youthful features, it makes us humans feel better.
I think Lawrence's argument for Mickey Mouse's apparent immortality is slightly more convincing than Robert W. Brockway's argument mostly because Brockway seems to repeat a lot of Lawrence's ideas. He talks about the same human wish to be young forever and to take joy in immaturity and juvenile behavior that makes life more fun. He does a good job of recognizing the fact that Disney did all of this intentionally for marketing purposes. For example, his point that Walt left a note on every animator's desk saying "Make it cute" demonstrates that it was the product's popularity that mattered, His point that we love Mickey because he is made out of circles seems a little weak, He seems to believe that we have an aversion to pointy things but I think our love for Mickey stems from his cute features rather than his circular body.
Either way, I love Mickey Mouse.
This practice is what allowed Mickey Mouse to be accepted by large audiences not only in the United States but all over the world as well. Neoteny is when one tries to retain juvenile or "cute" characteristics on a being, whether it is a cartoon or a real animal. This is obvious in Mickey with his round figure made up of mostly circles as well. He has big eyes and big ears that just make him more adorable to many which only boosts his popularity which is what Walt Disney wanted of course. Neoteny can be seen in everyday pets, especially those teacup dogs that everyone just seems to fawn over. Many cartoons, not just Disney ones, hold those childlike characteristics as well such as Stitch (Experiment 626 from Lilo and Stitch) and Toothless (the Night Fury dragon from How To Train Your Dragon which is a Dreamworks production). If you walk into any Disney store today (not just the ones in the theme parks), it is obvious that all the stuffed animals are made to look cuddly with their huge puppy eyes. This brings out our instinct to protect that is evident as early in our toddler years as well as when we are adults. It is also a demonstration of human's natural obsession with youth and by enjoying cartoons that exhibit youthful features, it makes us humans feel better.
I think Lawrence's argument for Mickey Mouse's apparent immortality is slightly more convincing than Robert W. Brockway's argument mostly because Brockway seems to repeat a lot of Lawrence's ideas. He talks about the same human wish to be young forever and to take joy in immaturity and juvenile behavior that makes life more fun. He does a good job of recognizing the fact that Disney did all of this intentionally for marketing purposes. For example, his point that Walt left a note on every animator's desk saying "Make it cute" demonstrates that it was the product's popularity that mattered, His point that we love Mickey because he is made out of circles seems a little weak, He seems to believe that we have an aversion to pointy things but I think our love for Mickey stems from his cute features rather than his circular body.
Either way, I love Mickey Mouse.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Response to "What's Wrong With Cinderella?"
I enjoyed reading Orenstein's article because it reminded me a lot of the mindset I had as a child and still mostly have today. It might not be as bad as the author's because I definitely don't recall going off on a dentist for a Disney or princess comment. However, I completely understand her dislike for the typical pink tiara culture that seems to be forced upon little girls.
Growing up, I hated pink. I didn't see the point in playing with dolls let alone pretend to be one which is what happens when you pretend to be a princess. At the end of the article, Orenstein admits that even though some girls relish their time in the princess phase, most of them tend to grow out of it with goals of an actual profession that doesn't involve twirling. She fails to recognize that while the majority of girls gladly embrace the princess culture, there is that minority group that recognizes the culture is being forced on them and so they refuse to accept it. That's where I was and still am. I didn't want girl toys, I wanted the cool ones like remote control race cars and a slingshot and a skateboard. I never got those though.
My parents were set on not buying me those because they were "boy toys". I never stopped asking for them though which I think proves that children have the ability to know what they want, even though they may not get it. I'm not mad at my parents though because rather than try to force "girl toys" and the "princess theme" upon me, they let me do my own thing. Orenstein is worried about how her daughter will act as she gets older if she believes in the princess idea the market sells so well. I think she should be more worried about what she teaches her daughter at home. Parents have a great influence on their kids, they may think they're in a losing battle with mass media, but really it's the way they raise their children that helps children filter what they see. I think Orenstein should have a little more faith in the girls of today's generation, as well as see that it's not their fault they're exposed to that.
Growing up, I hated pink. I didn't see the point in playing with dolls let alone pretend to be one which is what happens when you pretend to be a princess. At the end of the article, Orenstein admits that even though some girls relish their time in the princess phase, most of them tend to grow out of it with goals of an actual profession that doesn't involve twirling. She fails to recognize that while the majority of girls gladly embrace the princess culture, there is that minority group that recognizes the culture is being forced on them and so they refuse to accept it. That's where I was and still am. I didn't want girl toys, I wanted the cool ones like remote control race cars and a slingshot and a skateboard. I never got those though.
My parents were set on not buying me those because they were "boy toys". I never stopped asking for them though which I think proves that children have the ability to know what they want, even though they may not get it. I'm not mad at my parents though because rather than try to force "girl toys" and the "princess theme" upon me, they let me do my own thing. Orenstein is worried about how her daughter will act as she gets older if she believes in the princess idea the market sells so well. I think she should be more worried about what she teaches her daughter at home. Parents have a great influence on their kids, they may think they're in a losing battle with mass media, but really it's the way they raise their children that helps children filter what they see. I think Orenstein should have a little more faith in the girls of today's generation, as well as see that it's not their fault they're exposed to that.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Janet Wasko
Reading Janet Wasko's article was kind of what I expected. Of course hindsight is 20/20. However, her claims of the 5 myths were not very surprising. It would be very naive to believe that the Disney corporation is not like any other business. They are a corporation, it does not matter that they mostly sell Disney movies with princesses and heroes. That is actually one of the myths Wasko tries to expose. When most people think Disney, they think of the things that actually say Disney on them, and that's usually products based off the famous animations such as Mickey Mouse and the gang as well as the typical damsels in distress that we see in the princess movies. Since it is a business, it can be expected that they would not place their well known name on all the television stations and radio stations and other businesses they own in case something comes from those businesses that doesn't fall into line with the Disney image. It would hurt their reputation and therefore, potentially hurt their profits.
Wasko spends a good portion of the article trying to demystify the "great man image" that Walt Disney is known for and I don't see why. I think I see this point as useless because I never even knew about Walt Disney. I never knew that there was a man behind the idea of Disney. Growing up, I just assumed Disney had sprung out of nowhere, kind of like all the Hogwarts students assumed Dumbledore just sprang to life all aged and wise (or at least I did). Wasko has a point though. Glorifying Disney, the man and the corporation, is not a good idea because of how well the name is known. If everyone grows up thinking Disney is that magical place where amazing stories happen, it could influence how people think of businesses. They may be more easily influenced by mass media and propaganda and fall under the power of huge monopolies because they're so easily convinced by an image.
Wasko spends a good portion of the article trying to demystify the "great man image" that Walt Disney is known for and I don't see why. I think I see this point as useless because I never even knew about Walt Disney. I never knew that there was a man behind the idea of Disney. Growing up, I just assumed Disney had sprung out of nowhere, kind of like all the Hogwarts students assumed Dumbledore just sprang to life all aged and wise (or at least I did). Wasko has a point though. Glorifying Disney, the man and the corporation, is not a good idea because of how well the name is known. If everyone grows up thinking Disney is that magical place where amazing stories happen, it could influence how people think of businesses. They may be more easily influenced by mass media and propaganda and fall under the power of huge monopolies because they're so easily convinced by an image.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Introductory Post
My name is Jacquelyn Arreaga, I signed up for this class because it was based on Disney. I figured if I'm going to be forced to write, it might as well be about a topic I am 85% sure I will enjoy. My favorite Disney character is a toss up between Stitch and Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer's Apprentice in Fantasia. My favorite Disney movie is Hercules. I am definitely interested in how this class will end up changing my writing style.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)