Just Some Terrible Disney Characters -- and by Terrible I Mean Monstrous

I don't even remember these characters, yet I can imagine that as a child they would haunt my nightmares. Especially the Peter Pan mermaids that are a total departure from the Little Mermaid's variety. Also, that gif of Lucifer (LUCIFER, REALLY) the cat from Cindarella is still really terrifying. I also never though of the clams as babies, but that makes sense and the Walrus is also super gross. I can't even. What are you doing Disney, what are these characters and why are you showing them to little kids?

Definitely Not the best Disney Movie Ever

This actually assaults my senses. I barely even remember The Emporer's New Groove, there is absolutely no way it's the best Disney movie ever created. I'm sorry, Kuzco is a horrible, unlovable protagonist with very few if any redeeming qualities that takes advantage of a good-natured peasant family. I wish Yzma had become Empress instead of Kuzco becoming emoporer, as this Buzzfeed article specifies, at least she isn't totally heartless:

 http://www.buzzfeed.com/samstryker/why-do-we-even-have-that-lever#.slYkbveAN

The Princess and the Frog Didn't Need to be Historically Accurate, but it Could've Done a Little Better

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kmallikarjuna/7-disney-characters-dressed-in-stunning-period-costumes?sub=2416459_1355727#.jamDdpQlm

So recently we watched the Princess and the Frog and read some scholarly articles that discussed the historical accuracy of the movie which is, to put it lightly, somewhat lacking. One of the scholarly articles we read was a piece called "After 75 Years of Magic: Disney Answers Its Critics, Rewrites African American History, and Cashes In on Its Racist Past" by Richard Breaux, and while I don't agree with him that we should have made Princess and the Frog entirely historically accurate, I definitely think that the story could be more explicit when it hints at the racial struggle of the time. While the 1920's South was definitely not a welcoming environment for Blacks, I don't think that a Disney movie is the proper place to make entirely accurate representations, for example there need not be a lynching or anything in Princess and the Frog. However, I don't think it would've been entirely out of the story to have the bus driver tell Tiana and her mother to go to the back of the bus, or to have Tiana's mother be a seamstress or a laundress rather than a dress-maker, and even to have the men selling Tiana the warehouse that eventually becomes her restaurant, to initially deny her the space and explicitly say that it is because of race. While those are hurtful, subjugating images, they're true to history, and in my opinion if Tiana overcame those struggles, opened her restaurant, married her prince, and still and the same happily ever after, the ultimate message of the movie would be preserved if not made more significant. Had they made the movie slightly more historically accurate and had Tiana faced that kind of racial discrimination at the beginning of the film, her achieving her ultimate goal of owning her own restaurant would have been all that much more empowering, I think. Also, I think that, much like how Frozen was dubbed the feminist Disney movie to end all feminist Disney movies, the Princess and the Frog could have been that movie for Disney concerning race. Not only would more families have brought their children to see the movie because of the shock value of more explicit historical accuracy, I think it would be well received as a story of triumph against all odd.

There could, however, be negative response because one of the only princess in the Disney canon who had to overcome this kind of racial adversity would be Tiana. However, my counter to that would be Pocahontas who was literally called a savage and had her people murdered by English settlers -- if Disney can step on all those Native American toes and get next-to-no backlash, they should be just as comfortable semi-accurately representing Black history in America. Pocahontas' story is essentially the kind of historical accuracy I'd be hoping for with the Princess and the Frog, broad strokes, not specificity. Pocahontas certainly didn't delve into the smallpox riddled blankets that  were absolutely present at that time. Or that the English settlers initially tried to enslave the Native Americans before bring over Africans to be slaves. Or that the English absolutely massacred the Native American population to take their land and natural resources. I'm not asking Disney to 100% take down the rose-tinted glasses of fairytales through which they tell these stories, but they could be at least a little more accurate and still be profitable.

PS: The link above shows princesses in their historically accurate garb. Even that I think is a little romanticized because if Tiana comes from the "ghetto" of New Orleans, she sure as anything would not be wearing such a swanky flapper dress. That's my last piece, here I will rest my case.

Nani is the best, and probably my favorite Disney Princess

http://moviepilot.com/posts/2015/01/23/7-times-when-tumblr-users-proved-how-deep-their-disney-love-is-2607593?lt_source=external,manual,manual

I'm really on a feminist bender regarding Disney because of this final paper. When I was casually trolling Buzzfeed (as one should always do on a beautiful Sunday evening) I found this article about seven times tumblr users showed their love for Disney, but what I focused on within that was their love of specifically Nani, the big sister from Lilo and Stitch. Nani is a 19 year old who is essentially the surrogate mom to her boisterous little sister who constantly wreaks havoc on Nani's home and life. Yet, even when dealing with her sister, Nani is tender, loving, and supportive, and barely waivers in her supporting her sister's wild imagination and ideas even when aliens enter into her life and home. She has a totally realistic relationship with Paul, she lives within her means and even struggles to do so, she stands up for her little sister even when it causes her to lose her job, and she's just generally the toughest, most awesome Disney character. Even her appearance is more empowering than the average Disney princess. She has powerful, surfer legs that help her be the strong action hero she needs to be for Lilo and Stitch. She isn't some unachievably waif-life princess and she sure as hell is not the demure little "good-girl" of all the other Disney movies. I haven't seen Lilo and Stitch in years but after reading this article, I'll be watching this all the time with my little cousin Lindsey.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/krystieyandoli/terrible-love-lessons-we-learned-from-disney-princes#.aczwOjdA4

As I ponder gender roles in Disney, here's a little Buzzfeed article on all the things that Disney has taught us about romance that are damaging and or wrong. And I have to agree because even in the movies where Disney is trying to be progressive, they mess up romance. Example: my future paper topic, Maleficent, where all the romantic relationships are either underdeveloped or dangerous. A complete person shouldn't be entirely reliant on a relationship to define them, shouldn't need to change themselves to have a happy relationship, but can also HAVE a relationship. Romance, one of Disney's most frequently featured plot lines, is something they consistently fail at accurately representing. Since love such an important piece of life, they should really work on getting this right.

The Princess and the Frog

I know a lot of people commented on the fact that Tiana was a princess who just happened to be Black, not a Black princess, but to be honest I don't really understand the difference. This is a failing of understanding on my part I'm sure but let me please explain what I mean. I mean, although I do understand culturally that there are differences between "traditional" White families and "traditional" Black families, but I don't really understand how that would make Tiana behave any differently from the other princesses. She was the hardworking princess, which I personally think all the princesses should have been but aren't, and which could be a universal trait. She doesn't speak in the "dee"s and "dem"s that the author of the Coons and Cannibals article (rightly) took issue with in Song of the South. Is that what makes her not a Black princess? I feel like her story in the movie, the fact that she faced some negative racial biases, the fact that she wasn't from a royal family, etc. did distinguish her from the older Disney princesses, but Disney was careful not to totally caricature her. Had they made her have a "ghetto" accent or abide by racial stereotypes, I think that would be a more offensive/problematic representation of Black culture than this. The Princess and the Frog is a children's movie and so would not necessarily be welcome to delve into the utter darkness that is American slavery and then post-Slavery era racism. They touch upon it slightly, but in a way that only hints to discrimination and glosses over the true pain that non-Whites would have felt during the 1920's. The fact that Tiana overcomes that racism and then runs a successful restaurant herself, married to a man she loves, is better than the quintessential Disney ending where the princess becomes her prince's property, but yes it isn't the traditional Disney ending. Like I said in class, all of these can't be combined into one character: Disney cannot have a historically accurate representation of the lives of African American and other minority individuals in the 1920's while simultaneously having the princess experience the traditional Disney fairytale. Tiana cannot both rise up and over come oppression, and have a cushy life where she dances in the woods, meets a prince, becomes his wife, and lives happily ever after. Rather than trying to smash all of these characteristics into one Princess and have that be Diseny's one, token non-white princess, Disney just needs to diversify all of their princesses and incorporate historical and cultural components just as they would in the stories of the white princesses. If I were Disney, I would just take a hiatus from having white protagonists, we've got plenty of princesses to draw on. If the next five years of Disney princess movies, be they relevant to the racial culture of the princess or not, had non-White princesses, it would change the oppressively white feel that Disney currently gives us. And as long as they gave it a great plot and a great score, I think it would be well-recieved.

TL;DR: Disney needs to stop trying to one-and-done racially diverse Disney princesses, and needs to learn how to incorporate traditional cultures and happily-ever-afters in a balanced way so that the spectrum of racial and cultural diversity present in the world and specifically the US can be accurately represented in such a quintessential-American culture piece.

Maybe it is time for an update, but the classic is so iconic

http://www.disneydining.com/cinderellas-castle-to-be-renamed-for-elsa/

Apparently, Disney is considering renaming Cindarella's Castle to Elsa's which is a welcome update, I'm sure young girls now would so much rather meet the magic Queen Elsa than Cindarella (supported by the fact that Elsa outsold Barbie this Christmas), but Cindarella's castle is just so classic. I don't know, maybe it's just that when I think Disney, I think Cindarella: it's as if she is the Queen of the princesses and that the others are all just additional. She wasn't even the first princess, though, so I don't know how she became so significant in my mind. By seniority, Snow White should be the most significant princess yet somehow Cindarella has dominated little-girl-culture. And now it's Elsa's turn. Maybe I'm just hankering for a throwback because Old Duke is right around the corner, but I wax nostalgic thinking about Cindarella's Castle which is something I wouldn't do if they changed the name to Elsa's Castle.

Absolutely Inspirational

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lorynbrantz/disney-princesses-as-office-supplies#.lxQJBoKD8

I'll just leave this here, it should really be seen by all. It's probably the most open-minded reimagining of Disney princesses and I'm proud that it'

s on the internet.

Up is Probably My Favorite Disney/Pixar Movie, and Probably Always Will Be

I really love this movie. It's heartfelt, it's genuine, it's like a handwritten note from Pixar. What I mean by that is that even though it does have some fantastic pieces, like a flying house, talking dog, etc, but  mostly it's a slice-of-life piece that gets into real life as much as a children's movie can and should. In the opening sequence, Pixar shows the most equitable, realistic romantic relationship present in any of their movies. Ellie is basically the Rosie the Riveter of Disney, she could be an iconic feminist figure if Disney played their cards right. She takes control of her own life: when she's little, she likes Carl so she decides to be his friend (he has little hand in the manner), in the same vein when they finally get married, she leaps onto him rather than him whisking her away to some far away castle (like I assume the princes do to the princesses), and finally she has a thirst for adventure, not for a family, until she feels ready to start a family. Ellie isn't defined by her gender and need to conform to gender stereotypes as the other princesses are, she is a real person. And she undergoes hardship, and she mourns her inability to have children, and she moves on and enjoys the day-to-day. Some people might think of that as small minded, or not ambitious enough to be deserving of such a significant piece of the movie, but real life, like what Ellie and Carl experience in the first few minutes, is what brings the audience to tears literally every time they watch the movie. It's beautiful. It's much more delicate than some of the other messages that slap you in the face like "Bad things happen to bad people," and whatever. Maybe that's because it's silent so there's no forced comedy, instead it's like watching a memory.

There's beauty in Russell and Carl's relationship too, in the healing that Russell helps Carl undergo. Carl is obviously broken as a person once Ellie dies, however Russell's bouyancy revitalizes him and helps him reach the dream he once thought impossible, visiting Paradise Falls. He unknowingly achieves his and Ellie's other dream in tending to and nurturing Russell as he does on their trip to the Falls. It's not specified as an adoption, but there is obviously a message in the body of Up that your family can be those you choose to be your family if your biological family does not provide the support you need. Or that families don't have to be biological to be normal. Even after their wild adventure, Russell and Carl come back to their same small town, Russell gets his grape soda can badge from Carl, and the two sit on the curb talking about the passing cars. Even though they came together as a family under extraordinary circumstances, they ultimately became a totally normal family. If anybody should watch Up, it's adopted children because it doesn't force them to face their adoption, however it indirectly shows how totally acceptable it is for a child to not fit their biological family, but find all the love and care that they need in their adoptive family. (I'm not adopted but,  ugh, I just can't get over how profoundly comforting I found this movie, it felt like a hug from my parents. It was kind of what I needed right now with this pre-LDOC slue of work.)

The Periodic Table of Disney

Disney for the Chem Major, or those who learn by work association, they've created a Periodic Table of Disney characters. Is it too far? You decide.

Home is What You Make It

I'm a little unclear on what the intention of "Home is Where the Heart Is: Pixar's Up" by Dennis Tyler is trying to communicate. On one hand it seemed to be saying that it was a white-centric movie putting excessive emphasis on the needs of Carl, the white, male protagonist. On the other it seemed to be saying that Up stresses the importance of family, even non-traditional family. I really agree much more with the latter than the former understanding of the movie. To me, Up is a case study on how family can effect and change your life for the better or for the worse. For example, Ellie brings out the best in Carl in that she makes him brave, she is strong and happy and wonderful. She is a powerful, feminist figure who really could exist without Carl yet she chooses to marry him (example, jumping on him at their wedding, obviously her choosing him, not becoming his property). Because of this I don't see their relationship as glorifying the patriarchy. If anything it shows what a healthy relationship filled with mutual respect looks like. The two decide mutually that they want to have a child. They decide mutually they want to fill their lives with adventure when they cannot have a child. They support one another through the highs and lows of their relationship, help one another, and love one another. Marriage in this context is an example of a constructive familial relationship the two people involved chose.

Russell is another great example. Even according to Tyler's examination of the movie, it seems like Russell comes from some kind of broken home. He does not have the same kind of support in his life that Ellie and Carl do, and so he went out of his home, I'd even stretch it to day that's why he's a boy scout to find a support system outside his family. Carl becomes basically a father figure to Russell over the course of their travels, even so far that Carl was Russell's "father" at his boy scout ceremony and presents Russell with his last badge. Kevin and Dug, in the same way as Russell, are attracted to the secure, warm, fatherly figure that Carl tries to conceal behind a grouchy, old-man exterior. Even as a viewer, you can tell Carl's a softee behind that tough exterior and obviously the characters in the movie could too. Dug is an innocent dog from a very repressive "family" that doesn't accept him because he isn't the right kind of attack dog that his owner wanted him to be. Kevin is a single mother with children to take care of and no other familial support. As a unit, the foursome become each others' family and take care of one another. If anything this is one of Disney's most beautiful messages.

It doesn't matter in my opinion, or apparently the opinion of the Disney animators, who is a part of this family. The family is about as non-traditional as it can be. Kevin is a bird, and a tropical bird at that, and the only female. Dug is a dog, a talking, sweet-hearted dog. Russell is an overweight,  possibly-Asian-American-possibly-White-boy. Finally, Carl is an elderly white man and acts as patriarch of this make-shift family. They don't all look the same. They aren't even necessarily the same species. However, each of these characters offers something to the rest of the group that they need to feel secure and that's all that family needs. Not everybody has the best biological family situation, so in some instances people seek solace in their relationships with pets, friends, teachers, or other mentors and Up's message tells children that this is ok, in fact it's sometimes just what you need.

I thought this was appropriate considering we're about to start watching and discussing Up, but somebody on the internet is a horrible person. I saw this and thought "How cute!" until the last frame, where my heart sank. Somebody on the internet is a cruel, cruel individual. #CarlandEllieForever

Somebody at the Disney Store has a sick sense of humor.

Kim Possible, Oh How I Miss You

http://www.buzzfeed.com/juliapugachevsky/reasons-kim-possible-was-the-best-disney-channel-show?sub=3378583_3271090#.hooRyYzbB

I just ran across this article and oh god do I miss Kim Possible. By far it was the best Disney Channel show, not just when it was on but I would argue ever. Kim was a feminine, yet strong, smart young woman who could just be friends with a boy, came from a good home, and fought crime. Literally what wasn't possible for Kim Possible. I don't know what happened to Disney's television shows, maybe just becoming so politically correct, so afraid of violence, etc. means that shows like this can't be on the air. Also the writing though, the writers for Kim Possible were some of the sassiest writers I think Disney has ever seen. While modern Disney TV shows try to emulate this same sass, it just comes off as trying too hard. The jokes were, and after reading this Buzzfeed article I realized still are, genuinely funny. I will never laugh at a joke told my Austin and Ally in Austin and Ally. I miss it, and I will probably spend the rest of my Friday binge watching Kim Possible on Netflix.

Do All Disney Female Characters Have the Same Face?

These are the jawlines and noses of the most recent 16 male (green) and 16 females (red( Disney leading characters. Notice anything different? Well, not in the women's outlines. In fact, the women's outlines just look like one face turned at different angles. However, no two male faces have the same nose OR jawline. That's a little suspicious to me, considering the women are of different ethnicities, different movies, different lifestyles, etc. and so should look different. What really gets me is what the head animator, Lino DiSalvo, said was the reason for this:

"Historically speaking, animating female characters are really, really difficult, ’cause they have to go through these range of emotions, but they’re very, very — you have to keep them pretty and they’re very sensitive to — you can get them off a model very quickly. So, having a film with two hero female characters was really tough, and having them both in the scene and look very different if they’re echoing the same expression; that Elsa looking angry looks different from Anna being angry."

So male characters don't express emotions enough to make it difficult to animate them? More importantly, the female characters aren't worthy of having their own face to express their emotions with? That's absolutely ridiculous. There is no possible way that animating female faces through emotions could be so difficult that they don't deserve to have individualized faces. If the animators are willing to spend however long it took to animate Elsa's hair, they sure as anything could differentiate her features from that of Merida or Rapunzel. It's fine if she looks like her sister, that logically makes sense, but there isn't just one female face and its important that that is represented. I think one of the more legitimate reasons that they don't animate females like they do males is because the men often are more comical characters. Their features can be more exaggerated or clown-like however, women cannot be anything but the same "beautiful" that Disney established fifty years ago. Sure, features like large eyes, rosy cheeks, and small mouths are genetically recognized by humans as cute (they're features we innately expect to see in babies and so we respond positively to them, it's a whole thing about making people not commit infanticide -- same thing with puppies being cute) but women who have all sorts of face-shapes and facial features deserve to have their faces animated.

Disney Princess Rap Battle

This needed to be shared. The only thing greater than this actual rap battle is the fact that there are 2 more videos of other princess rap battles:

http://news.iheart.com/articles/national-trending-pop-104650/watch-sarah-michelle-gellar-as-cinderella-13417490/

I don't even live in a state with a Disney-anything

I live in New Jersey, specifically Union City, New Jersey. We are not a particularly Disney-focused city. My hometown is nothing like Disneyworld's Main Street, or even Disney's failed suburb, Celebration, yet on my most recent trip to the airport I saw this Frozen display in the Hudson News. You know, just in case you get bored, or cold, or want some nice Frozen-themed china for the plane ride home. It kind of wow's me how ubiquitous Disney paraphernalia is and how I could even impulse-buy Disney items on my way home to college. Way to go Disney, if you've made it in Newark Airport, you'll make it anywhere. 

Newly Acquired, Time for a New Name?

As Disney continues to grow and acquire all the possible childhood-memory-building franchises it can (those of children that came before the prime of Disney, those who didn't enjoy Disney's films, etc.), it comes time that Disney changes its park's name again. I don't really know what you would classify the formerly MGM Studios, now(ish) Hollywood Studios park as -- it's not traditional Disney, that's for sure, but it's not specifically any conglomerate's park. Will it just be called "All Major Movies Parks" and just be an eclectic collection of rides themed after big-hit movie franchises? The world may never know. Or at least, not until Disney figures out how to market this park-mess.


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-disney-hollywood-studios-new-name-20150312-story.html

If Disney Princesses Could Give Their Younger Selves Advice

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alivelez/these-grown-up-disney-princesses-have-some-solid-life-advice#.siWYwx9vP

This is a pretty great idea. The princesses do make mistakes and do have insecurities and it's really inspiring to see them give their earlier/younger selves advice on life that would've made their lives even better in the movie. Recently, I've started wishing I could've done the same. I was a really nervous/subdued middle-schooler and it fed into my high school years. Rather that being my real, quirky self I tried to conform to the interests of people I never really meshed with. I saw this quote on Pinterest that said "Die with memories not with wishes" and that is basically my mantra since getting to college: I want to be myself and experience everything so that I don't ever have the regret of never having tried something. If I regret doing something, I can move on. If I never gave something a chance, all I'll do is languish. Each person faces these kinds of regrets, of not doing something or of not being someone, and each of the princesses did, too. This'd be a nice addition to the princess-vien of Disney if it were targeted to middle-schoolers. A nice, positive, self-love type message to help them get through some of the toughest years of their young lives.

The Lion King

http://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/20-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-lion-king#.lg3zWB6xQ

Here are some interesting little background tidbits from the minds behind Buzzfeed.

Now to my actually response to the Lion King: I really love it. I loved it when I was little, I loved it when I watched it on a Broadway stage, I love the score, and I just love everything about it. What I love most is that it's relatable at every age because like the boy in the movie Boyhood, you watch Simba's entire life -- his tumultuous childhood, his formative teen years, the difficulties he faces as a young adult, making difficult decisions on his own, and finally you see him as a success, with a family, ready to start the next circle of life. I related to the movie when I first watch the movie -- when I was young and care-fee and just couldn't wait to be older, to go to school, and to be a big kid. I could also relate to the movie when I was older and finally I had to begin to "adult" but didn't want to. The Lion King shows the range of one individual's life, it also shows multiple lifestyles (#teamTimonandPumbaa), multiple moralities, and multiple spiritualities. The multiple lifestyles are exemplified by the traditional heterosexual relationships such as Sarabi and Mufasa's or Nala and Simba's, while a possible homosexual relationship could be seen in Timon and Pumbaa's possibly coupling, there might even be an example of asexual lifestyle in Rafiki or Zazu's choice to never take a mate or show a true sexual inclination.  There are multiple moralities that are very clearly delineated: Mufasa has an almost Kantian moral stance -- he treats all others fairly because, I assume, he would want all those within his kingdom to behave morally. On the other hand, Scar behaves like a scavenger (it's funny that he chooses to hang around scavengers like the hyena's too because he behaves like one)  and behaves opportunistically, disregarding familial relationships and all that is traditionally considered "right" to achieve power. Zazu exemplifies a strict, rule-following idealism, his sense of "goodness" comes from serving and abiding by his duty. The Lion King even shows multiple spiritualities. Initially, the animals of the savannah worship the circle of life with not clear "God-like" figure. However, when Simba is older and needs advising from his father, the image of Mufasa in the sky is reminiscent of a prophet conversing with God looking for wisdom or guidance. Basically, I love the Lion King because unlike many of the other Disney movies, there's a little something for everybody, of every creed and every lifestyle, in this movie. Unlike many of the other Disney movies, I also found it didn't really subjugate any of the identities represented: it didn't represent females as weak, they were just the non-main characters, all of the sexualities were respectfully represented, and the movie fairly rewarded moral behavior. This would be one of the first movies I let my children watch, especially if movies are as influential on childhood development as the news wants us to believe. I'm really glad I got to rewatch this movie because I think it's a really valuable movie in Disney history. In my opinion, it's the turning point for Disney to become the more progressive Disney the company is still working on becoming today.

In Response to Timon and Pumbaa's Alternative Lifestyle Dilemma

So, a lot of the articles we've read I've disagreed with, for example the phallus-filled article by Roberta Trite about the innuendo of the Little Mermaid. I don't, however, have much to disagree with regarding this most recent article "Timon and Pumbaa's Alternative Lifestyle Dilemma," by Gael Sweeney. I never registered Timon and Pumbaa as a gay couple, maybe because I was four or so when I first watched the Lion King, until reading Sweeney's article. After reading the article and comparing it to my most recent memories of the Lion King, I could not only see Timon and Pumbaa as a gay couple but they seemed almost akin to Cam and Mitchell from Modern Family (maybe their relationship was an earlier inspiration? -- might be a stretch). While I'd never really considered their relationship to be romantic, their bickering, general relations with one another, and the way they tended to an adopted "child" (Simba) really did remind me of a more familial relationship than just pals kickin' it.

Granted some of her points weren't as strong. Personally I didn't think that Timon calling Pumbaa his "bestest best friend" indicated a gay relationship -- the terminology was too child-like or infantile so instead it reminded me of the way two kindergarteners would refer to a close friend. Similarly, I don't think the hula-dancing scene codes the two as a gay couple because I think it's just a colorful, whimsical dance scene more than anything. Children love bright colors, music, and dancing and we have to keep in mind that Disney is producing movies mostly for children. While there are luau-themed drag shows, I doubt that this is one of them. In fact most of their songs are really more friendship-inspired than insinuating romance.

The reason I still see them as possibly a romantic couple is because a relationship isn't purely sexual or lovey-dovey. When a relationship gets to the point where a couple is ready to raise a child (Simba), the two people are friends as well as romantic partners. They can have moments of being friends that are entirely platonic because Timon and Pumbaa have been together for a long time and so are no longer in the "lovey-dovey" stage that Simba and Nala are when you see the next instance of romantic love in the movie. Mufasa and Sarabi aren't particularly romantic-seeming when you see them as a couple at the beginning of their movie (literally no other couple in the movie is as traditionally couple-y as Simba and Nala). The most convincing evidence of Timon and Pumbaa as a romantic couple is the fact that they raise a child together. They teach Simba how to behave, what's right and wrong, and how to live life after he is totally isolated from his pride.

Also, the fact that Nathan Lane SAID that he tried to portray Timon as a gay, Jewish man means it's probable that Timon could be read as a gay man (and should be). They could be just another set of friends, but also the fact that neither Timon nor Pumbaa ever end up with their respective female meercat and warthog could support the assumption that they're a gay couple.

Personally, I support it and I really hope that Disney included a same-sex couple in their movie even as early as 1994. It'd mean they were super progressive even that far back in Distory. I'd be proud of Disney and proud that Disney's first introduction of a same-sex couple is as a couple that raises not only a successful child, but one who later becomes a successful King with a strong moral compass and a way with the ladies. It would show how even Disney, generally a fairly conservative company, believes that same-sex couples can behave in a way people tend to view as "normal" (not exclusively a hyper-flamboyant way) and can raise a happy, healthy child that doesn't necessarily conform to the same sexuality. I will choose to believe Sweeney's viewpoint and I hope it becomes a more broadly accepted comprehension of the Lion King.

The early 2000's were the Disney Channel's Golden Age of fashion. Check it out on Buzzfeed here: 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ninamohan/25-most-important-style-lessons-we-learned-from-the-disn#.fuE2NB576

Are the Villains in Disney ALL Really Transgendered?

Putnam is herself a sexist. She defined transgendered behavior so vaguely that anything that doesn't fit a "gendered norm" is considered a "transgendered" behavior. Since there is no definition of what is considered a gender-normal behavior for men or women, there are stereotypes but nothing is exclusive, her criticism stems from her own beliefs on what is "female" and what is "male." Let me start tearing in a little:

The Evil Step Sisters

Putnam says that because they have flat chests, boyish faces, and large feet, they are meant to appear masculine. Also, since they fight physically with one another, they must be emulating boyish behavior. Putnam declaratively states that, "The sisters also physically fight with each other, emphasizing their boyishness by participating in still more traditionally male behavior" (153). According to Putnam, only boys can have fist fights and if girls do it means they are behaving as boys. Nothing defines the behavior of fighting as distinctly male, animals of all species and human females frequently fight (check Youtube, there's plenty of evidence). I, personally, have qualms with all of this because it would mean that I, too, am a transgendered Disney character by her standards. I am not by any means considered buxom, I wear a size 8.5 or 9 shoe, and my sister and I used to physically batter one another when we were younger even to the point of bruising. By deciding that the only "feminine" is the feminine of Cinderella, Putnam, not Disney, is perpetuating highly restrictive gender norms that don't allow for tom-boyishness.

Scar

She claims that Scar must be a transgendered character because he is not a hulking male lion and he has no mate. Yes, it's possible Scar could be an image of a gay character but that could be a stretch also. For one, in actual lion prides, only one male mates with any or all of the females. Also, I saw no actual mating in the Lion King (thankfully) so who's to say that when Scar takes over the pride he isn't mating with Mufasa's former mate. She might not be affectionate toward him but that's because Scar is a sarcastic, rude character, not necessarily because he is lacking masculine characteristics. Also, Putnam says that the words Scar chooses and they way he says them make him appear less masculine. I'm sorry, I forgot that men were only allowed to have low voices and speak in "I am Caveman"-type English to be considered an Uber-man. Scar is an articulate, quick-witted character who has cruel intentions. Children and the other characters in the movie don't like Scar because he seems shady and he is: he pushed his brother off a cliff and the entire movie before and after that all Scar wants is power. If anything, a judgement could be made on the racial implications of Scar -- why does the evil lion have to have darker fur than the good lion?

Jafar

Jafar is probably one of the strongest cases Putnam made for transgendered character identification, he does wear make up and does not want to marry Jasmine for lust, but for power. However, his physical stature, his slender frame, I don't think really could identify him as a transgendered character because the protagonist male lead, Aladdin, isn't particularly hulking either. I won't really contest this one too much, I do somewhat agree.

Urusla

Much like the evil step sisters, Putnam attacks her physical frame as a way of identifying her as masculine. If anything, Urusla is the least masculine Disney character: she's buxom, wears make up, and satisfies most of Putnam's previous "female" qualifications except that her voice is low, she's half octopus, and she's "obese" by Putnam's standards. Even the way Putnam introduces Ursula's physical form, she attempts to bias the reader to see Ursula in a negative light: "Ursula exposes fleshy, wiggling, sagging jowels [...] Her exaggerated characteristics begin to read more and more like a flamboyant drag queen than that of a real exile concerned with starvation" (155). Disney does not specify that this body-type should be disgusting, in fact Ursula is one of Disney's most popular villains. They especially never say that Ursula's figure is "mannish." Putnam describes her body as revolting (maybe she used other words but that was the message she was getting across) and unfeminine, then continues to say that because of her over-dramatic behavior, Ursula must represent a transvestite (specifically Divine). So because Ursula doesn't look like a Disney princess, or sound like one, she really can't be a woman to Putnam. She must be a man in drag. Ok that's rude and harmful because if everybody strives for the Disney Princess norm that Putnam says is the epitome of femininity, we get lots of eating disorders and movies like the new Cinderella movie. Woohoo, my favorite.

Rattcliffe

I'll give it to her, he's pretty clearly an unfavorable image of a gay man. This example I can agree with Putnam on a little.

The Cashier

He's not even a Disney character, but at the end of her essay Putnam says that her child asked her if the cashier was a man or woman because he wore a ponytail. Then Putnam puts words into her child's mouth saying how she must explain that the cashier isn't evil just because he wears a ponytail and that Disney's gendered norms has set her child up to believe that any effeminate man is a villain. If I were her child and I had asked that question and my mother had turned on me to tell me, "Just because he wears a ponytail doesn't mean the cashier is evil! No more Disney movies for you!" I would probably have cried a lot and been very much terrified. Would that kind of aggressive behavior toward a child be considered masculine behavior? Maybe I would only be scared of my mother because she was exemplifying the transgendered characteristics Disney told me to fear, not because she was shouting in my face at a supermarket about assumptions I had never made. Obviously we should blame only external sources for our putting our own biases on other people rather than accepting the fact that we ourselves have preconceived stereotypes, etc. that we need to learn to get over. Rather than blaming Disney for all the aggression toward gay and trans people, maybe Putnam should re-examine herself because I think she sees these types of people as evil and just wants something else to blame for her misguided view.

Even in the Duke Store

Not technically Disney, but the font looks very much like Disney.

Revisiting the "Princess" Body Image

It's one thing for an animated character to have entirely unrealistic proportions (example: Rapunzel in Tangled with orb-like eyes, a head like a Bratz doll, and a practically non-existent waist) but when Disney brought the same imagery to their new, live-action Cinderella, they crossed a line. Cartoons are obviously not real people, they complete actions no normal human could including activities such as flying or not having severe brain trauma from being smacked in the head with a cast-iron frying pan. Even if seeing the cartoons' like the original Cinderella, Belle, Aurora, etc. could be detrimental to a young girl's body image, seeing a real person who bears the same proportions is endlessly more detrimental. When ads and trailers for the new Cinderella movie came out, there was almost immediate outrage at how unbelievably small Cinderella's waist was. Magazines, and I'm sure movies, have been doing photo-editing on models' and actresses' bodies for years to alter them into unachievable, thin bodies. People will buy the products these companies sell because, subconsciously they think that if they do, the products will make them look like those mythical-magazine-nymphs. In the last few years, people have started fighting back against these negative-body-image-inducing advertisements and edits, calling out companies that photo-edit their models and deny it, even sometimes making blogs dedicated to these photoshop fails:

(https://www.tumblr.com/search/photoshop-FAIL)

Adults can recognize that these images are faulty and, even if some people wish they could look like the models pictured, more and more people are realizing it's really a waste of time to hope for such slender, smooth figures because they aren't natural. Children don't have this kind of understanding. They don't even have fully developed brains that can really think rationally. How could a company, a "family-oreiented, wholesome" company like Disney which has also had plenty of scandals regarding its actresses with body-image issues, eating disorders, or depression, think that this kind of imagery is in any way ok. Not only to they attempt to perpetuate the desire for unrealistic ideals, and make it seem like they are all that much more achievable by editing a live-action movie to fit that unrealistically thin body-type, they then denied ever editing the image. They should at least own it if they did (which I more than strongly believe they did). Buzzfeed wrote an article on the matter, I've linked it on the side, where they interviewed people who sell and make corsets and CGI experts, both of whom said that Lily James' waist in the new Cinderella movie couldn't have been achieve without about a year of "body training" (ew.). I really doubt this girl wore a corset for a year before filming this movie. So do those experts. I can't even fathom who thought this was ok and not only ok but a good idea. What's worse is that Disney created this image in one of their most popular franchises, Cinderella possibly the most iconic Disney princess. While I would love it if this movie crashed and burned with nearly-no ticket sales, I know it'll be a block-buster and that's probably the worst part.

Reconsidering Ariel, Again

After reading Roberta Trite's "Disney's (Sub)Version of Andersen's Little Mermaid" I am again reconsidering how I view Ariel. I'd still never want to be her in either the H.C.A version of The Little Mermaid or in the Disney version, however I can see Trite's point about how at least the H.C.A. version isn't focused exclusively on romantic love as the soul pursuit of the protagonist. I may have just been off put by the H.C.A version because personally I don't think religious concepts of heaven should necessarily to stressed to children in order to respect their and their families' religious autonomy, however I do agree with Trite that the principles of charity and forgiveness are valuable to learn. I also agree with Trite that Disney's fairytale presents more extensive opinions on what makes a "good" physical shape that the H.C.A. version. Although in H.C.A. the witch says that the Little Mermaid's beauty will help her attract her prince, H.C.A. never specifies what about her is beautiful. In the Disney fairytale, Ariel is slender, fair, and has a doe-eyed innocence, where the evil villain Ursula is fat and has skin that is a grey-ish tone. One could say that this is Disney's commentary on the superiority of pale skin, but more definitely it represents the weight conscious ethos of America beginning around the time that The Little Mermaid was produced where hyper-thinness began to be considered the ideal (also known as the heroin-chic look). While some facets of Trite's argument seemed like a stretch to me (she seemed very keen on the presence of phallic objects within the story but most seemed a little far-fetched to me, same with the whole H.C.A's having the mermaid feel as if she were stepping on glass as a metaphor for menstration), I could get on board with much of it, including the Paradise Lost allusion relating Ursula to a Satan-figure. If my issue was the presence of religious allusions, then I guess this would make that a mute point and judging the stories otherwise especially after reading Trite's paper, I'm surprised to say that the original story is actually more relative and valuable as a children's story meant to teach ideals than the more modern Disney version. The songs and everything are clever, but I'd rather have little girls learning that goodness will grant them a happy ending than learning marriage is the key to their happily ever after.

Any Other Princess I'd Rather Be

Sorry for the Yoda-esque title, but it gets the point across. After reading the Hans Christian Anderson version of the Little Mermaid and after rewatching the Disney film, I've decided that I'd rather be almost any other princess than Ariel. This is an interesting realization for me because of all the princesses, I used to identify with Ariel the most. We both love to sing, we both have thick hair (at one point mine was also red), we both have sisters, and we both fought with our parents. However, after rewatching the movie I realized how little I'd want to identify with her: in the sea, she has a very restrictive father who uses her as an example of his success. He definitely loves her, he sacrifices himself to keep her from becoming a polyp after she makes the mistake of defaulting on her contract with Ursula, but he also objectifies her as a music box he can show off. When Ariel goes to visit Urusla, she's told it's better if she doesn't speak and that boys will like her more for this. She's told that all she needs to do to woo a man is to be pretty and demure. Wow. At least Snow White could cook and clean and in the Grimm's tale had a backbone. Ariel just sort of goes along with this, then abandons her family and all her friends to pursue a guy who she never has a conversation with until she is breaking up his wedding minutes before she turns back into a mermaid. How does she know she loves him? She looks at him. Apparently mermaid culture and the culture of whatever country Eric is supposed to be prince of literally could not care less about conversation. All anybody seems to care about if beauty and techniques of up keeping beauty (see dinglehopper).
The Hans Christian Anderson might be a little less vain, but Ariel (who isn't named Ariel in the original) does seem a little more gold-digger-y. She does fall in love with Eric, but she seems to more fall in love with the "eternal soul" she could gain from having him love and marry her. The H.C.A. version is more a plug for the Christian faith (the Little Mermaid wants to go to heaven) than it is for genuine, true love. However, to achieve her eternal soul the Little Mermaid has to more permanently sacrifice her boy: her tongue must be cut out, she has to go through the pain of having her tail separated into legs (which, if Ariel experiences this too she hides it really well), and she must feel as if she is walking on glass each time she takes a step on her new legs. She goes through this suffering, but still doesn't get the prince. In fact, he calls her his "dumb" little companion. I'm sure dumb had a different meaning when this story was written, but I still didn't appreciate the Littler Mermaid being so repeatedly talked down to. Even if it was meant to be endearing, Eric is fairly condescending in the original story. The Little Mermaid at least has the redeeming quality that she isn't a murderer. When she is presented with the opportunity to regain her mermaid-ship by killing the prince (because her sisters did a Locks of Love-esque trade for their sister to return to them) and bathing herself in his blood, she throws the knife into the water and then herself, turing into sea foam. She then evaporates into water particles in the air and Hans lays his Christian-missionary type statement out: if air-born mermaid particles float into the room of a good child, they get to go to heaven a year sooner, but if they float into the room of a wicked child, they cry and have their stay as water particles extended a day for each tear shed. So the soul-digging Little Mermaid still has a chance to reach heaven, but it'll take a while.
I don't know why I would ever choose to identify with this particular princess, neither story presents an ideal situation. I wouldn't want to be married to a man I never spoke to who I knew only loved me because he thought I was beautiful and had a pretty singing voice. I'd like to marry a man who thinks I'm beautiful and that I have a lovely singing voice, but also that values my opinions and moral values and can hold a conversation with me. Similarly, I don't want to marry a man for the purpose of gaining anything, I'd rather marry for true love and not through dubious purposes. Especially not if those dubious purposes required me to feel pain for extended periods of time. I'd be more troubled if Little Quinn had identified with the H.C.A. Little Mermaid because she's literally told that beauty is pain and she needs to suck it up, then they end the story with a very obvious moral meaning that this story is meant to TEACH CHILDREN AN IDEAL SET OF VALUES AND BELIEFS. As a Catholic, my understanding is that as long as I am a good person and that I repent for my sins committed on Earth, I will go to heaven. I would really rather not believe that rather than my own "goodness" being enough to get me into heaven, I need to trick a man into loving me enough to get me there. Also I don't really love that he's pushing religion in a children's story any way. In this case I'm glad I identified with Ariel over the Little Mermaid, but I'll be on the look out for a new, more complete princess with whom I can identify with instead.

DIs-spirational Quotes

These are just some of my favorite Disney quotes. Every once and a while the Disney writers hit a profound chord and the message they convey is really wonderful.

Some *Cute* Little Easter Eggs

You never really realize what a sick sense of humor some of the Disney animators have until you rematch the movies. Even then, you don't always catch their little Easter eggs. I was perusing Buzzfeed when I stumbled upon "25 WTF Disney Moments That Will Ruin Your Childhood," and figured, why not ruin my childhood? And they did, a little. I will definitely not be able to watch Jaq stack necklace beads on Gus Gus's tail with the same innocent, "Oh they're just working on a necklace!" understanding again. What I was more surprised by in the article is how probably 75% of the "childhood ruining" moments were sexual. They seemed to miss a lot of the more violent ones, for example I linked another Buzzfeed article that shows the striking resemblance between Scar's addressing the hyenas and Hitler addressing the Nazi SS soldiers. It's true that realizing the sexual relationships between the Disney characters are a little shocking, but I don't think they're any more scaring that the violent scenes and relationships which seem to be more easily accepted. If anything, the sexual relationships are just something that the adults watching these films with their kids are used to seeing or have experienced themselves so they should be less "childhood ruining," than watching he hyena's eat a zebra leg in the lion king (which is what they do, and I didn't realize that until I watched the movie last night in my common room) or watching Scar throw his brother off a cliff while his young nephew is watching. That was strikingly violent and changed my memory of the movie. I don't know which really is worse for children to see. I'm leaving it up to my readers to ultimately decide for themselves. Check out the article in my list of links on the side bar.

Happy Valentine's Day from a Disney Fan with a Sense of Humor

Dopey's Legacy Maybe, but Gus Gus's?

In "Dopey's Legacy: Stereotypical Portrayals of Intellectual Disability in the Classic Animated Films" I can maybe get on board with Karen Schwartz, Zana Marie Lutfiyya, and Nancy Hansen in their argument that Dopey presents an unfavorable view of those with mental illness. However, I feel that when they drag Gus Gus into the argument their argument becomes a little thin. Dopey, in my opinion, does seem to represent the animators' opinions of the mentally disable, especially considering the animators said that Dopey's features were characterized as, "Down's syndrome-like," and he was meant to be "mentally retarded," or and an, "idiot." When you watch Snow White, you see that the other dwarves mistreat Dopey: they leave him behind or push him into danger, he's given only the simplest tasks, and he's often out of step or acting differently from the other dwarves. Dopey is also unable to speak, which is often a characteristic of those suffering from mental illnesses like autism. Children could identify these characteristics in Dopey, his challenges in social situations and his inability to speak, and learn that marginalizing people who exhibit these characteristics is not only ok, but also funny. On the other hand (I'm just considering this now), Dopey is one of the most lovable dwarves and Snow White isn't afraid of him and doesn't mistreat him. Maybe because of that it would teach children that people with those same characteristics as Dopey are equally lovable, thereby making it easier for them to interact with the mentally disabled. It is more likely they would observe the other dwarves behaviors and see those as the acceptable response to Dopey's actions and be cruel, but even still I would be surprised if children recognized Dopey as a mentally-disabled-inspired character. Even though in my opinion Dopey is the most-likely character to represent a mentally disabled person, he's never explicitly said to be mentally disabled. The animators are a little insensitive, though, for what they said about characterizing (or really more caricaturing) Down's syndrome-like features and the features of the mentally retarded. That was not cool, Disney animators, not cool.

Their analysis of Gus Gus I feel is a little bit of a stretch when they identify him as another possibly mentally disabled character. When I watched Cinderella, I always just assumed Gus Gus was the youngest mouse. He always seemed the most naive and most innocent, but I never saw him as "slow." I think that weakened their argument that Disney misrepresents the mentally disabled because it seemed like they were reaching for any character that could pass as possibly being mentally disabled and they were definitively saying these characters represented Disney's attack on the mentally handicapped. While I definitely believe there is severe misrepresentation of mental illness in films and in television, I don't believe that Disney has the same vendetta against the mentally handicapped that the authors of "Dopey's Legacy" seem to be accusing them of. I think the authors are willing to call almost anything an attack on the mentally handicapped in order to prove their point. For example, they say that Dumb and Dumber is an offense and again I will cite Gus Gus, neither of whom I would identify as mentally handicapped. Dumb and Dumber I would classify as two stupid guys, not necessarily two guys with mental disabilities (I am not terribly familiar with most of the movies the authors cite so I may be wrong as well and too callous) and like I said previously, Gus Gus is childish. I am too unfamiliar with the other texts they address to comment, I've never seen of Forrest Gump for example, but I question the authors' credibility because of these other examples. I'm neither too familiar with mental disability nor am I too familiar with most of these movies, but from what I gather these authors took a solid idea a little too far. I can see maybe Dopey's legacy, but I believe the authors should have stopped there and their message about protecting the interests of the mentally handicapped would have resonated more with me.

It's scaring me a little how much the computer knows about me. Now it's not only telling me to apply to jobs with Disney, but the add has been tailored to teaching Chinese using Disney. This popped up as a Facebook ad for me. If I were a little older, I might actually apply for this.

Target turned Disney World

Spotted at my most recent visit to Target: Disney Princess soup, Disney-themed luggage, and plenty of Disney sleep-items. If cuddling with a disney princess or character wasn't enough for your child, why not have them follow the Grimm's Evil Queen's example and cannibalize their favorite Disney characters? And personally, I'd rather travel with whatever luggage I have to see the Disney princesses than to just have them on my luggage, but I guess that'd just my personal preference. In fact, I think my five year old niece has that luggage set.

Disney Could Learn a Thing or Two, but So Could We

Disney is known as a giant in the entertainment and commercial goods businesses, but the company also has a giant, invisible hand in the education industry (but in the actual American educational system and also in the metaphorical sphere of "education" that Disney imparts on its viewers). Personally, I see nothing wrong with Disney's scholarship opportunities, teacher of the year awards, and grants that it gives to various schools around the nation. Education is important. Disney supports that, therefore I support Disney in supporting education. In Giroux's article "Animating Youth: The Disneyfication of Children's Culture," he mentions Disney having these scholarship opportunities as an example of the "over Disney-fication of America." While I agree that Disney is almost terrifying pervasive in the American childhood-culture, I looked into these scholarship opportunities and I was unable to see anything distinctly wrong about them. According to the Disney Corp. website, the teacher of the year award rewards, "a member of the teaching profession whose talent, commitment, and creativity have a profound and lasting impact on our children and society." These teachers also are nominated by parents, colleagues, and their students; it's not as if Disney is hand-picking these teachers according to how often they read their class Disney stories or play Disney movies for them, it's a genuine acknowledgement of their talents as an instructor. Not only is it an acknowledgment, the company then give monetary grants to both the teacher and the institution they work for, and education could always use supplementary funding. As long as Disney isn't impressing that these teachers must imbed Disney into their curriculum, I see no fault or "over-Disneyfication" present in these grants -- they simply benefit our children. (And so what if they make Disney look good along the way?)

What I do agree with is that Disney should be taught critically in schools. If Disney were taught in class through a similar historical, critical lens as actual historical events are taught in school, they could be a valuable learning mechanism especially for younger children. Rather than just watching the Jungle Book and learning seeing it as a fun, happy-go-lucky movie about a boy and his bear, if teachers critically analyzed it with their students looking at the racial undertones and other triggers in the movie that frequently go unobserved, it would be a powerful teaching mechanism. Moreover, it could be a lens in which to view American history at the time when the movie was produced. Why was "Why is the Red Man Red?" a fine song to put into Peter Pan when now the Washington Redskins are being frequently sued for naming their team after a racial slur against Native Americans? It makes American history relatable even to young children, although it might be a little much to go into full graphic detail of the history between the English settlers and the Native Americans when children are too young. I agree with Giroux that Disney is a huge influence on American culture, I also agree that it's a money-making machine, however if examined critically, even it's misgivings are really just lenses into the past. Whatever is offensive in Disney can be acknowledged as such and that can be alright. Times have changed and as long as we acknowledge that and don't let children just passively watch Disney movies with their outdated themes and undertones, they aren't harmful. The only catch is that Disney would probably hate this idea-- a lot. Like Giroux expresses, they've worked very hard to market themselves as the ideal, wholesome, innocent children's stories and if they are read as misguided retellings of history, or highly-dated cultural representations, then Disney might not be thought of as such a  harmless entertainment source. On their website, Disney Corp tries to be fairly transparent about their various human rights policies, nutrition policies, etc. regarding the production of their goods and the management of their parks, but I still don't believe they are ready for the same critical examination of the intellectual goods they produce.

A Different Kind of Princess

Well the Grimm Brothers' version of Snow-White is... different. Between the cannibalism, murder, necrophilia (sort of),  child abuse, and misogyny, it surprised me that this story was the inspiration for a Disney fairytale. Moreover, if the Disney film is seen as outdated, I don't know what you'd call the Grimm Brothers' version. The Grimms' fairytale, for the most part, is offensive to women. In this fairytale world, all women are vain, beauty conscious creatures with no other characteristics than their appearance. However, it ends with Snow-White being the only princess I ever known to exact her revenge on her tormentor at the end of the story, making her the only princess I've read about with that kind of backbone. Maybe it's not just an attack on women, more an observation of how their appearance effected their existence in the era when the Grimms' fairytales were written (assuming that it was set in modern day when it was written). 

All that matters in the world of the Grimms' fairytale is beauty: Snow-White's mother wants a beautiful child, her stepmother cares exclusively about being the most beautiful in the land (so much so she would kill to be the fairest of them all), the huntsman spares Snow-White for her beauty, the dwarfs trust Snow-White to live in their home because of her beauty, and finally the prince falls in love with and marries Snow-White based only on her beauty (he literally doesn't care if she is dead or alive). But even the good Snow-White is easily deceived and taken advantage of because of her lust for beautiful goods. She serves a good, dim-witted, surrogate housewife for the seven dwarfs, so she does have that "redeeming" quality, but beyond that Snow-White is characterized by her beauty. Beauty is so important to those in the Grimms' fairytale world that when Snow-White is only about seven years old, her stepmother decides she is too beautiful to live in the same world and so has Snow-White taken to the woods by a huntsman. Snow-White's stepmother instructs the huntsman to return Snow-Whites lungs and liver to her as proof that the huntsman had killed her step-child. If this is not morbid enough, she then proceeds to eat what she believes to be Snow-White's lungs and liver in celebration of her victory. Maybe consuming the organs of another to gain power from them is some Germanic ritual, maybe it's just the Queen's particular taste preference, but I'm glad whatever it was it didn't make it into the Disney adaptation. No matter how Disney framed it, this scene would be difficult for children and parents to swallow. If I had read this as a child, I would probably have some qualms about eating whatever meat my parents put on my dinner plate from then on. 

The story returns two inverse messages to the reader: the first being that beauty is valued above all else, above gold, love, and kindness, but also that being too beautiful is dangerous. If one becomes too beautiful, they risk becoming as vain and envious as the evil Queen, or falling victim to those envious people like the poor, helplessly simple Snow-White. (I may be harshly critiquing Snow-White, but in the Grimms' fairytale she trusted the evil Queen's disguise three times even after the dwarfs implored her to not trust anybody. I'm sorry, but she's a dumb girl.) However, according to this story, if you are so undeniably beautiful as Snow-White, you also won't ever be in danger of a wild animal attack as exemplified by her traipsing through the forest without any animal-molestation. Other benefits of beauty include everybody taking pity on you and welcoming you into their home, not decaying when you die, and having princes see your dead body and claim you as their owns because they "cannot live without being able to see Snow-White. I will honor her and respect her as my most cherished one." However, you will also be objectified, and possibly placed in a glass case where you are labeled "Princess" like a good for sale when you die. The way I see it, there is a lesson in this story if someone reads the story as a "What-Not-To-Do" guide to passing judgement on the character of other people and creating a system of values, but it has value in how it redefines "goodness."

 The end of the Grimms' fairytale could be confusing to a seasoned Disney viewer: the so-called "good" Snow-White has her evil stepmother dance to her death in burning hot shoes, yet still has her happily-ever-after. Had Snow-White been forgiving (not that her stepmother deserved a pardon for her actions, but a classically "good" character like the Disney princess would have her happily-ever-after without ordering the death of her enemy), she would have exemplified the Kantian morality often exhibited in Disney films. In this way, the Grimms' fairytale Snow-White does have more backbone than the traditional Disney princess and because of this would not be as widely accepted as a role model for children. It is an interesting culture shock for me as a now-adult raised on Disney, to read a story where a princess can fight back against her former aggressor and still have a happy ending. To me, it's a little sick how she seeks justice, but also a little liberating that even this helpless, characterless, befitting-of-a-Disney-movie princess can act in a not-traditional Disney manner and have her happy ending. I'm not entirely sure that I would read this story to my five year old niece, but I still think it's a valuable, alternative to the traditional Disney princess story.

Disney from a Different Perspective

Disney may be given a lock of flock for being a bad influence on children, prompting poor self-esteem in young girls, mishandling mature content, underrepresentation of minorities, etc. etc. However, I just read this article from the New York Times, linked on the side of my blog, called "Reaching My Autistic Son Through Disney," and it sort of blew my mind. I previously blogged about how Disney will, I'm almost certain, never make a video with a mentally handicapped princess or character as the heroine or protagonist because it doesn't fit the mold of perfection they usually go for. My issue with this was that I assumed children who were in a handicapped state and watched these movies would intuit that what they suffer from deems them unworthy of ever being the protagonist and living happily ever after. Without a protagonist that represented them, I assumed children would be unable to identify with the characters and feel left out and diminished by viewing these movies. Owen, the child with autism in discussed in the New York Times article, showed me there could be another perspective.

Owen was a normal kid until the age of three when he stopped being able to comprehend human speech and social cues like a child without autism would. He became unresponsive and quiet until his parents discovered they could communicate with him using the characters from Disney. While Owen was unable to comprehend day-to-day social interactions appropriately, the social interactions, speech patterns, and language of Disney (along with the frequently musical adaptation of speech) Owen was able to learn English and understand complex social relationships that were too nuanced in the real world for him to learn. His parents began employing puppets, adapting the voices of the characters, and various other Disney-fied way of communicating with their son and learned that he was understanding the world and not only that, but he could also recognize that he did not engage with the world like the other kids did. Owen saw himself as a "sidekick" in a Disney movie, equivalent to Mrs. Pott, Lumiere, Sebastian, Rafiki, and the like. Owen saw the characteristic in each of the sidekicks that made them a little bit different -- their gentleness, their loyalty, their lightheartedness -- and recognized the same characteristics in the children he attended school with. According to Owen's father commented "It’s often the supporting players in Disney fables who are more varied and vivid," and it's true, the sidekicks are more often the flawed characters, those with harsh tempers or who are overprotective, those who maybe behave in ways that society doesn't necessarily promote. But they are still deserving of love, appreciation, and sometimes even laudation. Without the sidekicks, the protagonists would never achieve their happily ever after. The most beautiful part of Owen's story to me was the no-sidekick-left-behind policy he instituted in his sketchbook. Owen had a lot of difficulty making friends in school when he was young, according to his father's article. After attending a certain school for special needs children through the elementary school levels, Owen was removed from the school. Any friends or acquaintances he'd made in his years there were torn away and he felt dejected, unworthy, and unwanted. While Owen couldn't communicate this orally, he showed his dismay at being removed by drawing the emotion in the faces of the Disney sidekicks he recreated in his sketchbook. To compensate with the loneliness he felt, Owen drew the sidekicks in his sketchbook in pairs so they were never without a friend and he could feel vicariously secure. 

Even in a story not meant for children like Owen to identify with, Owen was able to find his place in the story, perhaps because he looked at the storyline with a more sophisticated and considerate eye. Owen valued the "sidekicks" that most of us just see as background noise to the hero/heroine of the story. I just wish that Disney created something that could help ameliorate Owen's loneliness by making him a Disney hero with whom he could relate. While it's touching that Owen was caring enough to become defender of sidekicks and paired them together to protect them from being as lonely as he was, no child should ever be made to feel so marginalized. Obviously Disney isn't all bad, in fact it was a critical factor in Owen learning how to socially relate to the world and it later enabled him to engage in relationships with his peers later in life. Owen made himself and the sidekicks the heroes of his life-story, but in my ideal world, Disney would already have them, or similar characters, occupy that space and all Owen, or children like him, would need to do is watch.

Disney Debunked

Janet Wasko doggedly pursues the "truth" about Disney, as an institution and about the man himself by naming the five myths she sees as the leading cause behind misunderstanding Disney.  The Myths that stuck out to me most were Myths 4 and 5, that Disney is wholesome and that Disney is beloved by all. I agree with Wasko that the "normal" Disney presents, a heterosexual, generally anti-feminist, cisgendered, and mentally unimpaired "normal," is not necessarily as wholesome or as beloved by all as it sounds. It is, however, more palatable than a more inclusive model for children's entertainment. What Disney provides is a sanitized replication of real life where everything goes the way the hero or heroin wants in the end, where love is all one really needs to be successful in life, and where the wrong-doers of the world almost always see the error in their ways. Kids can feel safe in knowing that, according to Disney, as long as they are "good," life will be fair to them and they will be successful and happy. Maybe what Disney provides, children need. Sometimes children's lives aren't as wholesome as they appear in Disney movies. Some kids have problems with bullying in school, unsupportive parents, or might come from a broken home and Disney movies can provide solace for them. The child can see a character in a movie, identify with that character, and then watch that character win-out in the end and live vicariously through that character, feeling that they've also won out. The danger of Disney is that the characters they provide for children to identify with aren't all-encompasing of all the identities that child could occupy. Disney in recent years has been making an effort to include princesses of different races to provide characters more children can identify with, but that's only begun in the last five years or so and are some of the least promoted characters.

Disney's unveiling racially diverse princesses is seen as a progressive move on their part and is generally well received by the parents of Disney loving children. However, if Disney ever came out with a transgender, gay, or mentally handicapped princess or any other type of character, you could be almost certain parents would protest the movie if not full-on riot because the content of the movies would be too mature for their children. I don't know that I would disagree with that sentiment either. I'm eighteen years old, I'm a supporter of LGBTQ youth, gender non-conforming youth, I'm a feminist, and I try to be sensitive to the struggles that the mentally handicapped go through, but even still it can be a lot for me to understand. Personal identity is currently going through a renaissance; people are finding the voices and support they need to finally explain how they identify as a person. It's a difficult concept to explain to adults, let alone children, that sometimes bodies don't fit feelings and sometimes romantic interests don't conform to what many people consider to be "normal." I don't know if children would be able to understand or if they should understand these complex matters, though.

In Peggy Orenstein's piece, "What's Wrong With Cindarella?" Orenstein discusses how up to a certain age, children don't gender identify, in fact girls will say they want to grow up to be Daddies. Maybe this would be the right age range to introduce the concept of gender non-conformity. Maybe it would be like learning a language: the earlier you start the more naturally understanding comes. Simultaneously, it could be difficult to show the challenges that face individuals who don't conform to the "normal" Disney provides in a Disney-eque way. These individuals are often bullied, beaten, and even killed and until recently had very little chance of "winning-out" in a world so repulsed by their identities. If these identities were introduced to children so early on, maybe they might see them as the new normal. Maybe it would cut down on if not end bullying for gender non-conforming youth. Maybe it would make openly gay, bisexual, or any other sexually manifested relationship appear more common to these children and when they become adults, it would make for a more accepting culture in general. The only hang up I have about presenting these identities to children is that the suffering these individuals undergo can be difficult to watch and understand, and the sexual nature of many of these identities and relationships can be a little mature for children. However, if the sexual relationships were approached with the same innocence Disney currently approaches relationships with (where the most climactic point in their relationship is the first kiss and that kissing and hand-holding essentially are a relationship) then I see no reason why there couldn't be a gay Disney prince or a transgender princess.

Even if it weren't the most thorough introduction, even just mentioning that identities currently not represented by such a ubiquitous children's entertainment source exist could help to normalize these identities. Disney might not have been able to grow into such a large, almost monopolizing empire if they had initially taken this approach. Now that Disney is not only a household name itself, but all its subsidiary companies are as well, Disney has the power to show this and future generations that "normal" isn't just confined to what we consider the current Disney normal to be. The foundation of Disney's normal may have been crafted from what was considered normal in the 1930's, 40's, and 50's but Disney is not faultless and has perpetuated the same gender roles, etc. ever since their inception practically. What I'm saying can basically be summed up as: Disney created this "normal," and Disney movies might just be the fastest way to expand this normal to fit the new normal. I would challenge Disney to do just that because until they do, to paraphrase Janet Wasko, Disney is providing a dangerous normal that only serves to perpetuate the most conservative, most widely acceptable version of normal, and the world no longer fits that mold.