Perhaps I'm not using my academic thinking cap.
While I appreciate her hard work, I did not like Janet Wasko's article.
Despite the hordes of evidence and statistical research that I feel was effectively shoved in my face with little explanation or purpose, I don't fully understand the drive behind Wasko's findings. There were definitely moments in which she analyzed changing cultural patterns and changes in Disney film patterns, but I felt as though the connection between the two was a train that was not only left behind at the station, but back in a whole other state.
Something I did like was the concept of an "othermother", which I knew was prevalent in Disney plots, but I didn't know was an official construct on it's own. I'm glad this type of figure was defined and represented in the arena because it consistently plays a huge role in films in which the main character loses their original parents. However, rather than describing the development of this character and if they were influences by culture, I was given more facts about gender roles and employment status that I simply didn't know what to do with.
As I was reading what seemed to be my three hundredth page on statistical analysis, I asked myself if I was missing the point of the piece so I referred back to what I hoped was the thesis or main topic. "This...explores narrative subtexts surrounding parenting and caregiving by systematically examining feature-length, animated Disney films. " I guess this block was checked, but I just wish there had been more inference and information than what was provided. I feel the potential for this article to be be insightful was plenty, but Wasko just missed the mark.
No comments:
Post a Comment