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.

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.

"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.

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 has believers.

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.