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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.