Greatest Disney scene

As my previous post would inform you, I re-watched the aristocats! I think there was one song that stood out as being one of the most adorable and fantastic parts of the entire movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zO8cytvG9M

Even though these are cats, the animators did a hilarious job with presenting them as real kids. I also adore that they left the kids' voices sounding rough, not super tailored and pitch-perfect. It provided an element of reality that I thought a family could relate to.

TBH, this song went straight to the top of my Disney playlist on Spotify and it should of everyone.

The Aristocats reinforcing heteronormativity?

My reasoning behind my re-watch of the Aristocats was two fold: When I asked my older sister what her favorite Disney movie was, she said the Aristocats (which surprised me because I remember hating it) so I wanted to remember the details of it. I also wanted to see how this movie, which stars a group of cats, would fit into the arguments made in the latest articles we've read about deviance and homonegativity.

I think that the movie overall heavily flies in the face of a ton of arguments made by the various authors regarding deviance and transgendered-ness. However, I do think that there are subtle indicators throughout the movie that are reinforcing the gender of each character, thus reinforcing "normative" behavior that could be undermined by villains in future movies.

Some of these biggest indicators happen with the kittens, Berlioz, Marie, and Toulouse. At the very beginning of the movie, it is apparent the three are siblings. However, Marie is distinguished as female by her pink bow around her neck. Then, in a scene in which Marie and Berlioz are wrestling, Marie is specifically asked to stop by her mother as it is "not lady-like" to be fighting. Marie even then agrees, saying "ladies do not start fights." Afterward, Berlioz is also called out by his mom for not being a proper gentleman by declaring that it is "rude" of him to engage in a fight with his female sister. The idea pushed here is that women should not be in fights at all, while it is simply "rude" for a male to engage in a fight with a female. This reinforces the attitude that aggressiveness should not be present in a female at any point, while in a male it can be okay unless they want to be polite.

Another point made by on the qualities expressed by queer male villains, is that they tend to fluff and groom their faces a lot and are lazy (getting their "sidekick" to do the brunt work for them). Because I do not feel the villains in the Aristocats were marked by the transgenderedness, I wanted to look to those stereotypical actions displayed by queer villains in the female characters to find the precedent of the associations of these actions as distinctly feminine. What I found was that there were in fact many scenes in which Marie and Duchess spent licking and grooming themselves, as well as straightening out and fluffing up the fur on their faces.

There is also a heavy emphasis placed on what being a "lady" is like for the Marie and Duchess at the beginning (prim, proper, etc...). There were also several scenes in which the female characters were shown to be dependent on others as opposed to just doing what needed to be done themselves. For example, Marie falls out of the car and nearly drowns in the water. During both times Duchess asks O'Malley for help as opposed to just reaching down and saving Marie. As well, Marie asks O'Malley for help with little attempt to save herself. This helpless and lazy attitude probably helps perpetuate the "damsel" status of females, while simultaneously causing queer male characters who display these kinds of attitudes as "deviant."

The Aristocats came across as defying a lot of the claims many authors have made about masculinity, femininity, and queerness. The villain is a male whose only feminine signs are that he's prim and proper (but that appears to be more associated with his class). And there is even a specific time when Berlioz refers to O'Malley as "sissy." So that undermine's LaPoint's argument for "sissy-as-villain." However, they do reinforce some stereotypical, normative characteristics amongst their characters that could be used as a basis for future transgendered villains.

Beauty and The Beast 2

We just read about Disney's use of transgendered villains. Well, just today I rematched Beauty and the Beast 2: The Enchanted Christmas after having watched Beauty and the Beast a couple of days ago for class.

It is crazy how even the ORGAN has some "transgendered" qualities to him. The organ is the villain in this movie, who is trying to prevent the Beast from falling in love with Belle.

Not only is The organ's face feminine (he is wearing purple lipstick and his human form is wearing eye makeup), but his entire attitude toward the beast comes across as romantic. The way he talks about the Beast is almost as if he is in love with the Beast and is trying to prevent him from falling in love with Belle.

I thought these observations were very interesting in light of Amanda Putnam's "Mean Ladies" article that we read on transgendered villains. What she was saying even applies to the non-human organ in Beauty and the Beast 2.

Beauty and the Beast Film Response

Beauty and the Beast is always a classic. Plenty of people refer to Belle as their favorite princess, and Gaston is one of the most iconic villains in Disney-lore. For these reasons, in addition to the pending release of the live-action film, I was incredibly excited to re-watch Beauty and the Beast (despite having actually re-watched it over Christmas break).

I really wanted to go at this re-watch from the perspective that Professor Andres mentioned she held on the first day - that the Beast and Belle actually have a somewhat abusive, Stockholm-syndromey relationship.

My main contention on the re-watch is that I disagree strongly with the points of stockholm syndrome present in Belle. I also do disagree with their relationship being entirely abusive.

Of course, the Beast never once touches Belle forcefully (even though he does her father). However, at the beginning of the movie the Beast certainly yells a lot. There is even the one line where he says, "THEN GO AHEAD AND STAAAAARRRVEEE! If she doesn't eat with me, she doesn't eat at all." This is probably the worse line in the whole movie and could point to an abusive relationship if the audience saw Belle justifying some kind of a relationship with him despite hearing that. However, at this point Belle is in anything BUT a relationship with him. In fact, she even makes her own choice to not interact with him because he is saying these kinds of things to her.

As well, just before that line is said, the audience also see many scenes in which the Beast was not only yelling at Belle, but also yelling at all his servants and Maurice. This hostility is emphasized by the narrator when he explains at the beginning of the movie the Beast's seclusion from the world. He is completely alone with a magic mirror as his only access to the outside. The fact that the Beast yells and screams at everyone on screen showcases that what he has is truly a temper that isn't specific to Belle that could be potentially heightened by his lack of social interaction. Now, is it okay to ever give someone a chance who yells that much when you first meet them, even if they later change? That is a matter of opinion. Many would probably say no. But no matter the answer to that question, it is indisputable that his anger issues are present with everyone he interacts with, not just Belle. Belle never consents to being yelled at, in fact it is quite the opposite as she won't even come out of her room to look at him when he is yelling at her and tries to leave the castle when he yells at her later in the West Wing. A passively abusive relationship implies a lack of attempt to escape, and Belle certainly does not give the audience any indication that she is okay with being yelled at by the Beast.

The next source of criticism is that the Belle-Beast relationship grows in a manor reminiscent of stockholm syndrome which I WILDLY disagree with. The premise of Stockholm syndrome (at least to me) is that eventually the victim begins to justify the inhumanity of her captor in her mind. The Beast on the other hand becomes more humane throughout the movie, exactly opposite of the premise of stockholm syndrome. Belle strongly refuses to interact with him throughout the movie until he is the one who makes a conscious effort to change his attitude. She never justifies his inhumanity but rather is strong willed about not being okay with his actions until he changes them.

I love Beauty and the Beast. Though one can always point to how the Beast acts in the beginning (he might not be the kind of person I want to spend my time with), I think his inital anger issues highlight the message of the movie to an even greater extent. The narrator explains how the Prince was originally "spoiled, selfish, unkind." The Beast seems to be dealing with the fact that he is aware of his old habits and is mad at himself for ever behaving in such a way. It is Belle who showcases to him, and the audience, that not only should you be none of those things, but curiosity and intelligence can also win out in a female.

One of the negative things that stood out on my re-watch is that the Prince becomes the Beast in the beginning after rejecting an old woman because of her haggard appearance. But that old woman became beautiful anyway after delivering the message, "don't be deceived by appearances?" The message I feel is inherently a good one. Appearances don't matter, it is the heart. But I feel it could have been cool if Disney emphasized that message even more by leaving the haggard old woman actually old and haggard.

I also think Prince Adam might be my favorite Prince (at least in my top 3) so I'm retroactively admitting that this whole post could be extremely biased.




"Its not right for a woman to read. Soon she gets ideas, thinking..."

The Little Mermaid Film Response

The Little Mermaid is always one of those films that people of all ages love - from 4 year olds starting kindergarten, to college students ready for a night to destress. I was super excited to re-watch this one, as I have always felt a kindred spirit with Ariel as she is one of the few redheads in Disney-lore.

My main takeaway from watching the film is it reads as a love letter to the human species. Ariel longs for nothing more than to be out of the water and insists on the kindness and loveliness of every human, despite her father's insistence that humans are not good. Because Ariel is our hero, we are supposed to side with her perspective so of course, as a viewer I too find King Triton's proclamations regarding the terribleness of the human species to be rather bigoted and unprogressive. However, thinking these things has to make a person laugh. This whole thing is ironic because obviously the movie was created by humans. It would be like me publishing an article talking about how great women named Mikaela are. Just a little self-serving.

The thing that shocked me while watching the movie was how much I sided with the "adults" throughout the film. I couldn't believe it when I found myself nodding along with King Triton getting angry at Ariel for disobeying him. And I similarly couldn't believe it when I found myself agreeing with Sebastian who was panicked when Ariel was swimming away with MYSTERIOUS EELS WHO SHE KNOWS ARE EVIL! Like, come on Ariel! Her naivety astounded me throughout. Though she seems to be a curious girl, interested in the world around her ("bright young women. Sick of swimming."), I was shocked by the choices she made.

This naivety was also apparent when Ariel decides to sacrifice everything she knows for Prince Eric, a human whom she has seen from a distance. All Ariel ever mentions is how beautiful he is before she says in an argument to King Triton, "Daddy I love him!" Now, the audience at this point knows a few things about Prince Eric. They are aware that he is friendly to his staff, and they are aware that he is humble (he is practically horrified that someone models a statue after him). However, Ariel is aware of none of these things as she only looks at him from far away before making that declaration to her father. This very statement highlights how shallow Ariel can be as she is basing her feelings of love exclusively on appearance. She is not only shallow, but she is self-centered. She deliberately disobeys her father and leaves the entire palace in an uproar when she decides to leave the sea for her "beautiful guy" after a deal with the sea witch.

In contrast to Ariel, Eric is constantly presented as selfless. He believes himself to have fallen in love with a woman without having ever seen her (as he is in love with the woman with the singing voice who saved his life). He also takes Ariel, a stranger, in and houses her when she is without a voice and helpless. Finally, he slowly begins to fall in love with Ariel when he is watching her enthusiasm at discovering the world, not because she is "beautiful" like Ariel feels with Eric.  The contrast in these two characters could be used to highlight the sexism present in the Disney animation studios. Though Ariel is a particularly independent, headstrong female, the qualities that she is lacking are fully present in her male counterpart.

Another thing that stood out is that the female, by the end of the movie, has completely given up her world in order to be in the male world. Though this could be pointed to as yet another sign of a weak-willed female, I would disagree with this particular point. Ariel from the beginning wants to be part of the human world, so her joining it could be seen as her accomplishing her goals. Her aspiration in life was fulfilled and all by her own hard work.

I enjoyed the Little Mermaid on my re-watch just as much as I remember loving it as a child. However, the brattiness of Ariel did stick out to me at a much grander scale than ever before (for as a child I remember loving her and desperately wishing to be her) but even more particularly, her naivety truly boggled my mind throughout.

Cinderella Film Response

For as long as I can remember, I have been a huge advocate of the anti-princess movement. Now, don't get me wrong: I have always loved Disney movies, and I enjoy the princess movies. But as a 10-year old (and even now), I always emphasized that the princess Disney movies (particularly the older ones) are the worst of Disney's animated films. Sleeping Beauty in particular I remember thinking was astoundingly boring and, prior to my re-watch, I would have lumped Cinderella in that same category.

I have not done a full 180 on Cinderella, but I have gone pretty close to that (maybe 160?). I was shocked with how much I loved it. Previously, I had always sided with the majority of criticism one hears: Cinderella's Prince is so drastically underdeveloped that labeling their feelings as love is a gross mischaracterization of what takes place.

My main takeaway from the film is that sure, Cinderella's prince is absurdly underdeveloped. But frankly, so is everyone else. And Prince Charming's complete lack of character development actually makes way for a predominantly female cast. Though of course simplified and stereotyped, a much wider range of female personalities was highlighted in the movie than male. In fact, the main male "character" that appeared was Prince Charming's father. And the majority of his screen time was dominated by yelling and breaking items, a huge indicator of anger issues to the viewer. The other male character that receives a bit of air time was The Grand Duke who comes across as weak willed and foolish. This contrasts with at least two female characters who are portrayed as innately "good": Cinderella and her fairy godmother.

The fact that these are the two "good" characters is probably the cause for debate. At the beginning of the movie, the narrator offers that people are jealous of Cinderella simply because she is beautiful. Although the narrator says this, the movie shows much more: Cinderella appears to be friendly to even the lowest of creatures (mice) and always willing to find the best in people (serving her stepmother and siblings despite how torturous they are to her).

A much more interesting character to me is the other "good" character: the fairy godmother. Her depiction is extraordinarily grandmother-y. She is constantly forgetting things and is old in appearance. However, unlike the stepmother, she has rounder, softer features. There seems to be a light that travels with her unlike Lady Tremaine's angular, darker features. This probably perpetuates the idea of the very narrow scope that characters lie in (a good female can only really be beautiful or a loving grandmother), but there is still good present in these females as opposed to the male characters, who are all pretty much depicted as having no redeeming characteristics.

As well, to the main criticism of timing regarding Cinderella and Prince Charming's love, I did find it particularly interesting when the Prince's father explained at one point in the movie that love is "just a boy and a girl meeting each other under the right conditions." This means that within the movie's walls, Cinderella and Prince Charming do have real love. The movie itself is presented as a fairytale, so Disney itself acknowledges the fanatical idea of this definition of love.

I really enjoyed my re-watch, and that is mostly due to the characters of Jack and Gus. I laughed every time they were on screen, and the animation of when they are getting in a fight with the cat and sneaking around him is frankly fantastic. Great characters in a very solid early Disney film.

Response to "Fantastic Outsiders"

Pricilla Kiehnle Warner's article on Villains and Deviants in animated cartoons was incredibly interesting as it emphasized the economic, logical reasons behind simple characterization in movies. I thought this offered a very interesting contrast to the general "racist, sexist" rhetoric one hears when discussing the problems with the lack of fleshed-out characters a company like Disney produces in its movies.

This article was particularly interesting to me because it assumes the stereotypes that are present in society and explains how Disney is forced to use those stereotypes because of constraints (in time and finance). I thought it offered a very interesting take on how animators use social psychology to ease their burden in production.

However, the issue with Pricilla Warner's argument (as Carl Hassan and Giroux would likely point out) is that Disney is a billion dollar company. Financial constraints should certainly not be an issue for them like they are for other, smaller animation studios. Disney should be able to spend whatever money is necessary to obtain the complicated animating tools that would allow for a full range of ethnicities and races to be portrayed (or animation that allows for plaid shirts, like an example Warner used).

As well, the issue is specifically with Disney is that it is reinforcing the very attitudes and images in children that Disney then has to adapt their animation to allow for. Warner claims that children have a certain view of the world and because of time constraints, Disney cannot flesh out characters in a way that can deviate too vastly from those engrained stereotypes. However, by not even attempting very hard to deviate from those stereotypes and create more complex characters, they are then reinforcing them amongst the children who are watching the movies. It becomes a circular, inescapable problem. Like Giroux said, Disney is raising these kids and it is raising children with an attitude of ambivalence toward their predisposed opinions. For example (though this might be a bit more extreme than what Disney is doing), if I met a child with racist tendencies I would first look at the parent, and in this case that "parent", Giroux argued, is Disney. I would then try to do everything possible to reverse those racist tendencies. Disney is taking what the attitudes given to them and reinforcing them even stronger.

I love how Priscilla explained that "creators present villainous characters who illustrate the appearances, motivations, and behaviors of figures who threaten the cohesiveness of integrated social groups." This showcases that Disney is trying to raise their child to explain the consequences of "deviance." But when the "deviance" has become too connected to physical appearance, I think it becomes an issue. If we showcase evil manifesting in a broader turn of ways, then maybe we can craft children who disassociate evil tendencies with outer characteristics.

Favorite Character

I rewatched Tarzan for the first time in years. It had been so long I did not fully remember how it ended.

My take after the viewing: I loved it. I never remember adoring it as a kid, but I thought it was fantastic. The music and message are so different from many Disney movies, but extremely well done.

I always find it interesting when the villain is a young, decent looking white guy. So that was something to take note of. And I loved Jane more than I remembered. She is so intelligent and I really enjoyed how practical she seems throughout. She definitely comes across as more real than a ton of the other Disney "princesses."

However, enjoying the movie was not my only take. I think I have officially established my all time favorite Disney character.

When Tantor says, "But what about bacteria?" in his cute voice, I DIED. He jumped straight toward the top in my power ranking of "best Dinsey characters" after re-watching. 

All-in-all, I would highly recommend a rematch of Tarzan. I think this is a movie people like but is for some reason not as frequently talked about, despite fairly forward-thinking messages and characterization. We should change that! 

The Underdog

one thing I've begun paying attention to while watching reality TV is the audience's reaction to certain "characters." What's amazing is that the audience can absolutely despise a person on one season and then love them the next (or vice versus). The trend that I've seen amongst this is that the audience loves the underdog and hates the person in a position of power. It rarely has to deal with the personality of the person but rather their agency.

I think that's one of the biggest things that stood out to me while reading Hiassan. Disney seems to be hated by people precisely because they are like some people on the reality TV shows I watch. They are not the underdog.

The Disney Fallacy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-disney-fallacy-of-relationships_us_5893ed14e4b02bbb1816b8f3

When approached with the Disney Fallacy, many people heavily endorse that the version of life we see on screen is highly skewed. As pointed out in this article, Hollywood has long told us that our "dating lives can be wrapped up neatly in the course of 90 minutes" which, by all accounts, seems to be pretty far from the truth.

However, Disney probably gets more brunt of the criticism than most companies because, as Devon Kerns points out, it imbeds this "love comes without work" trope into children, long before we know how inaccurate this picture is. I do agree with the point that Devon Kerns is making, but feel the blame might be incorrectly placed. Disney is not the enemy.

With the invention of books and movies came the invention of marrying for love. For most of history people married for logical reasons - to guarantee the patriarch's property have a namesake, to fulfill the promise of whatever God you were serving, etc... But, when people were able to push forth the idea of romance through books and movies (love as the goal of marriage and not logic), the idea of what was expected out of marriage changed.

Disney pushes forth this ideal of romance strongly. Very few Disney movies hold anything other than a man and a woman (or a boy and a girl in some cases) meeting, falling in love, and then, if not marrying, smiling very widely with the notion of marriage being imminent. I think that as children we watch this and we grow up, even if we try to tell ourselves otherwise, hoping for this.

But, I think the problem is not that Disney is idealizing the future to children but is the type of romance that Disney promotes, which, coincidentally, is our western notion of love. This is a romance void of logic. A romance that the perfect person exists and will complete the other person and marriage will bottle any happy feeling and result in a permanent joyous feeling.

I think if we shift this perception, that great romance is a kind of permanent state of bliss, without logic and work, than we can fix the Disney Fallacy that Devon Kerns speaks of. Disney will no longer be the villian.

I truly do think that the goal of a media company is not to present a realistic view of the world like some people claim. I think Disney's job as a company is to give a happy ending to children. However, if a media company wants to push forth an "idealized" view of the world, I think we as a society need to shift the foundation we build marriage on. We should recognize the idealized form of love is one that doesn't bottle a permanent feeling the moment you experience a proposal. It is a relationship with active work. Perhaps you will find another person as if by accident, but that together you will maybe not be perfect or even happy all the time but you will be together.