Breaking heterosexual norms in Pride Rock

Interestingly enough, although I didn’t entirely agree with this piece, it was one of the first articles that I’ve read in which I felt truly entertained and involved. Once again, while there was several moments throughout her argument that made me question her logic, I loved her writing style because I felt like an active and engaged consumer of the text. Especially in the world of academic writing, it is common for me to feel disconnected to not only the text of the article, but the author as well because the material comes across as a lecture rather than a conversation. There is usually no room for me to formulate my opinions about the subject while reading because the author is so busy shoving their ideas into every open nook and cranny of my mind available. It was easier to agree with her because she pointed out the ridiculousness of the extreme beliefs and separated herself from it. Basically by starting her argument by criticizing the views her audience would disagree with the most, she essentially misdirected the negative attention away from her own opinions. If I were to summarize the way I perceived her tone it would be along the lines of “Look guys, these idiots over here think Disney is promoting a gay agenda, and I agree with you THEY are the crazy ones. But for the record Timon and Pumbaa are definitely gay. ”

Points I disagreed with:

1.     being isolated from society or an outcast is not a prerequisite for homosexuality.

2.     The two contradicting morals of the story was a point I definitely hadn’t thought about before, but I thought the whole point of the movie was about finding a balance between the two and being able to find joy in your responsibilities like Mufasa.

3.     A consistent theme throughout her argument equated musical theatre and artistic expression to being gay. Another flawed generalization.

Points I agreed with:

1.     Although wearing a grass skirt has no indication of weakness in Polynesian culture, wearing a hibiscus flower over your left ear means you’re in a relationship. I’m assuming the author is aware of this because she included the detail of the flower placement in her description.  If you were to wear it over your right ear it would mean you’re single.

2.     The discussion the two had over whether or not they were going to raise Simba did not strike me as a loving couple taking in a foster child but rather a scheming pair of friends.

Timon is portrayed in an usually feminine manner for a Disney character, there definitely are moments in which he illustrates a fondness for actions typically attributed to women.

31 Times Tumblr Questions

An article on Buzzfeed titled "31 Times Tumblr Had Serious Questions about Disney" caught my attention so I decided to comment on the first 20! 

1. The lyrics of the first song is in either Zulu or Swahili, but I am not entirely sure if this post is correct. From my understanding, it means "Here comes a king, a great king." Rather than, "Here comes a lion."

2. This is very very accurate! Interestingly enough though, in a some Nickelodeon cartoons and films, lime green is often used for the good characters. 

3. I'm pretty sure Disney does this on purpose. Although times are definitely changing the connotations of words in our language, "fool" is one that maintains the sting of an insult without being silly.

4. There are a number of places internationally that use VHS tapes still, it's definitely something that has pretty clearly been phased out though in Western countries. 

5. I find the advancement of animation to be one of the most interesting parts of Disney productions. The amount of work that goes into creating the features we take for granted is astounding

6. This fact ruined one of my favorite Disney movies for me. 

7. I've always wondered why gloves were a part of the original cartoon characters. When I was a child it bothered me that real rats and ducks and other animals don't have five fingers or hands, but somehow they fit into a glove.

8. I think this is just a coincidence. There are many characters in the past that have worn gloves without being evil. Take the Candlestick in Beauty and the Beast for example, he's one of the kindest characters in the whole film. 

9. I'm getting the idea that a lot of Disney films would be less enjoyable if they were accurate. 

10. I love this so much. Until I realize the fish is going to die and be consumed for dinner. 

11. This fact actually gave me real chills. Interesting way to pay attention to detail by Disney's part.

12. I wish there was a tumblr or blog dedicated to putting Disney lines into colloquial and unapologetic terms. 

13. It bothers me that this is one of the only films to feature the original language. Mulan and Aladdin both could have used a portion in the film in which this occurs.

14. When I first encountered this fact I was amazed, completely floored. Not once did this logical thought enter my mind as a child. In fact, I can't remember what I made that situation out to be.

15. I once read an article about hoe Peter Pan was promoting a homosexual agenda for kids. It seemed incredibly exaggerated though. 

16. Sometimes I feel bad that history can be oversimplified in such a way. But then I remember slavery. 

17. I've never actually watched Tangled, but I am getting the vibe that the humor is very modern and "New Girl".

18. This is a point I was discussing with a friend the other day, why is it that Disney Princesses are always fueled by sadness to take action? Why is it they are never inspired from anger or any other emotion?

19. "I've been searching my whole life to find my own place," Just noticed that Hans never actually sings about finding love like Anna.

20. Why do people find Hula skirts and Leis so funny? And there are definitely men in the culture that wear them too. Especially after experiencing the culture firsthand, it is a sign of warrior attitude and strength, not silliness. 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukebailey/disney-tumblr-tbh-i-just-want-silver#.auDw5QzwkW

Dopey's Legacy

Short short short summary of the article:

1. Disney unfairly depicts mental illness through the physical illustration of their characters
2. Disney promotes biased and hurtful stereotypes of the mentally disabled.
3. Because of Disney, mentally disabled individuals are going to be treated in an inhumane way.

Rather than going on a rant about how I disagree with this article, I would like to just point out the few problems I have with the argument/the logic of the piece.

1. I don't think that one can legitimately use the depiction of physical traits as a way to support a argument about consistent character portrayal, mainly because it is rare that Disney films aim for their figures to be realistically accurate. Usually the advantage of a memorable and visually aesthetic picture is more important to producers than one that is true to what you see in real life. Therefore, it would make the most sense to take these images with a grain of salt when looking at them critically because it is not only the silly characters that are physical hyperboles, but the entire animated cast. Princesses have nightmarishly small waists and large eyes, the proportion of size from the arms/shoulders to the head of most Princes would make them terrifying in real life. However, the entire point of this construct is that it looks appealing to the audience's eye.

2. The examples that are used in this piece, primarily Gus Gus and Dopey, are both definitely portrayed as less intelligent than their peers but to label them as "mentally disabled" from this trait seems like an exaggeration. One could argue that they are supposed to be illustrated as the younger and/or less mature individuals of their crowd. I know that when I first watched Cinderella, I significantly identified with Gus Gus much more than Cinderella herself. Just like Gus Gus, I had an older brother who often kept me out of trouble and sometimes got me into it as well. I didn't always understand what was going on, but when I did, I was passionate about being a part of whatever the situation was. The greater issue here is the author's definition of mental disability and how wide of a range it covers, as well as the fact that the interpretation of a cartoon character is incredibly subjective to each audience it is shown to.

3. As with every criticism that we deal with regarding Disney, there is the idea that watching Dopey, Gus Gus and Lafou get pushed around by their fellow characters, the audience will be overwhelmed by the urge to do the same to those around them. I don't agree with this specific connection of Disney and their real life counterparts because there are several instances in other genres in which archetypes are portrayed a certain way.

The Original Ariel

I've decided I'm going to live-blog my reactions to the original Little Mermaid by Hans Christian Anderson. I may not have as much to say as I would watching the movie, but I'll still be able to reflect upon my thoughts and connections of the piece.

"...they took it for the howling of the storm." I feel like this is a comment Simon Cowell would say on American Idol to a contestant that was convinced they were talented. I can just picture someone singing their heart out and Simon responding

"I couldn't quite understand the song...so I mistook it for the howling of a storm," and waving goodbye as he chews on a pen in the most condescending fashion humanely possible.

I feel like I would enjoy this story much more if there were songs distributed throughout. Trying to imagine if I would like the Disney version itself if there was no music in it. I think not.

Now we are into the part in which Anderson is describing Ursula's wretched home and the ugly evils that are within. The word "polypi" is used to describe the creatures that surround her house. I looked up what this word meant and it brought much confusion. Google says that this is a "polypus":

If Google was correct, which it usually is, then what exactly are these things that Disney depicted in the movie?

It is interesting to me that Disney excluded the pain that came with using human legs for the Little Mermaid. However, I do understand that it definitely gives the story a more tragic and dark tone. 

Additionally, I think the Disney version was more successful among audiences because the line between good and evil was more clearly defined. In this version, there isn't a true villain or hero that consumers can choose to side with. Although the Sea Witch is clearly malevolent to some degree, she never really does anything to the Little Mermaid that wasn't described and cautioned beforehand. The Prince, while he is illustrated as handsome and arguably pleasant, is the main cause of the Little Mermaid's death, but is he really a "villain" for just falling in love with another girl? In the Disney adaptation, Ursula is shown to be deceitful and evil, while the Prince is attributed with kindness and humility. Because of this, the audience can fully justify to themselves why they are rooting for the success of the Little Mermaid and for Ursula to be conquered.

Anderson's version of this tale left me feeling torn, much of this happened because of the selfish nature of the Little Mermaid's actions. She gives up her life and puts her family at risk to pursue a love built upon physical attraction alone. Oh well. That is what the Bachelor is founded off of right? 

A Return to Water

So I have decided upon a new layout for my movie responses. Rather than focusing on one aspect of the film like I did on the last movie, I'm going to present more of a reactionary piece of The Little Mermaid.
                                                                                                                 

Before Viewing

Things I Am Looking Forward To:

- the songs, The Little Mermaid easily has one of the best Disney soundtracks of all time, also I really just miss hearing laid back and/or upbeat reggae on the radio everyday
- seeing water. even if it's fake and animated. Being surrounded by trees and concrete is suffocating and ironically, I feel more like I'm on an island than ever before. I MISS THE OCEAN.
- nostalgia.

Things I Am Not Looking Forward To:

- the flip side of nostalgia: watching a movie I have seen a million times before
- Ariel's waistline, especially after the tub of ice cream I just consumed
- Ariel's hair, considering the state mine is in right now
- the concept of a cartoon character making me feel self conscious

Commentary

First scene is a song that no one remembers. Similar to Frozen, lots of burly men singing a burly song that you don't really pay attention to.

Mermaid people with ethereal music!!! I'm legitimately excited right now for this royal performance.
Why do all of Ariel's sisters look like the same person with different hair/eye color?

I forgot that Ursula was part octopus. Does that make her a mermaid still?

Disney got the whole father/daughter argument down pat. I've only had one argument with my Dad once and it was very similar. Only with much less cliche dialogue. There is always a certain amount of surprise when your parnets yell at you for the first time. Even when you know you deserve it, it stings.

No time for sad feelings when one of my favorite songs ever is on. WISH I COULD BEEEE PART OF THATTTTT WORRRLDDDDDDD! I can not tell you how many times I used this song for auditions. Definite work of brilliance on both the lyrics and the composition.

My face trying to figure out what exactly Ursula's "garden" is made out of and how Ariel would make a "good addition" to it.

No time to figure that out! ANOTHER SONG I LOVE IS ON! Under the sea is definitely where I want to be Sebastian!
Hold up a second... "the fluke is the Duke of Soul?"

What is it about a young girl sobbing that is universally heartbreaking to some extent?

Interesting that it is very common for the trait of different colored eyes to be applied to villians. In the same way that fuller figured, heavier characters like Ursula are almost always "evil". I tried to explain a similar concept like this in class the other day. I am not trying to say that just because someone has these characteristics, they are automatically evil. I am trying to say that things such as appearance and intelligence are often used by writers and animators to identify specific types of characters. Whew.

"If you want something done, you have to do it yourself." -Sebastian speaks the motto of every Duke student during group projects

It's time to kiss the girl! Man, this soundtrack is phenomenal!

I don't like the fact that Eric is planning to marry a woman based solely off the sound of her voice. Then again, he was about to marry Ariel based solely off her looks. I guess the he's quite the catch?

The final fight scene was exciting and well done, but way confusing. During the tsunami that is caused by Ursula, what happens to the wedding ship that Eric and all of the royal humans were on? How did they all somehow get back to the castle safe and unharmed?

After Viewing:

Things I Loved:

- the soundtrack!!!
- the animation/design of the characters, even if things got a little redundant, they most definitely were stunning at parts


Things I Hated:

- the moral of the story seems to be that having an attractive husband is more important that staying true to yourself and your family
- it also bothered me that Ariel didn't fall in love in Eric for anything besides his appearance, she never once mentioned any other quality
                                                                                                                    

I definitely enjoyed seeing this movie again after so long, but there are some things I caught that I didn't notice the first time around. It's times like these that I ask myself why I don't watch these movies on my own. They make me so happy, there must be something scientific about the formula of creating these films.

The Traditional Snow White

After watching the original version of Snow White, I had a feeling there would be a general community of comments about the film and it's production. So rather than discussing the obvious I'd like to reign my comments to the ones that may not get brought up in class today.

1. I could not keep my eyes off of Snow White. Everything about her was so unique and different to what I had become accustomed to in a Disney Princess culture. Her waist size was a reasonable size, her eyes didn't take up half of her face and it was definitely a weird feeling. My initial instinct was to say that she was certainly a more fuller figured princess, when in reality she is just one of the few with realistic measurements. The jarring difference between this Snow White and the one I was used to seeing definitely highlighted how formulaic Disney designers have become in terms of their female characters. Below I have an image of Snow White from the original movie next to an image of how her copyrighted image looks today.

                                                                             (1938)

(2015)

Although I couldn't manage to find one that wasn't blurry when uploaded, you can still see the differences made in her appearance. She was given more defined cheekbones, heavier makeup, a larger bust, a much smaller waist and thinner arms. The photoshopped effect is one that I don't think I enjoy. I feel as though I could swap the hair and dress of Belle or Aurora or Cinderella and still have the same looking character. While this bothered me, I can't say I wasn't surprised.

2. Music hasn't changed, but vocal styles sure have. The accompaniment of most of the songs in this film were really enjoyable to hear and almost comforting in a nostalgic sense. However, the voices of the singers made my head tilt like a confused chihuahua every time they started to sing. I've become so accustomed to digitally refined, pitch perfect soundtracks that it seemed foreign for me to be able to spot mistakes or hear the individual voices of each dwarves when they sung as a group. Now if there is an instance like that, a single voice is just looped and given the necessary audio adjustments to sound like  many people. 

3. I couldn't help but think back to an earlier reading we had in which an argument was made that humans are more inclined to like round edged characters than ones with many sharp edges. Less liked dwarves such as Grumpy were identified with sharp points and the the friendlier ones such as Dopey were dominated by curves in their visual composition. When comparing the Queen to Snow White, you can notice the overwhelming presence of angles and edges in the image of the villain, but not the princess. While at first I thought maybe that authoring was exaggerating, I am starting to see their point. 

A Grimm Snow White

This is the best reaction I can muster after reading the Brother's Grimm version of Snow White. 

Not only was the story way less appealing than the Disney film made it to appear, but it was almost hard to follow at times because of something that I can't put my finger on. Maybe it was the style of storytelling or how there were several parts that didn't make logical sense to me. Either way, I am definitely not a fan of the original. For instance, why did it take Snow White so many close encounters to understand not to open the door for strangers? What was it about this description of the dwarves that made them slightly creepy and less friendly than the movie version? And what was it about the Prince that seemed definitely more creepy than the movie version? Maybe it was the idea that he never actually proposed to his wife, but ordered her to marry him the moment she wakes up in a glass coffin. 

However, I did enjoy the difference in how Snow White was revived. The idea of her coming back from death because of a kiss never really made sense to me. While the concept of a piece of apple being dislodged from her throat due to a bumpy hike is little far fetched as well, it made me happy to visualize the seven dwarves being able to save her after all the stressful and tedious housework she did for them. 

The ending is one that I feel many of my classmates will comment on. I'm not quite sure how I feel about it and I've read the story at least four times now. I think a part of me enjoys the idea that the villain gets publicly humiliated at the end, but at the same time it is off putting to think of the graphic nature of how she was killed. Being forced to dance until you die usually doesn't sound like a bad way to go, but this case of burning iron shoes takes all the fun out of it for me. 

I'm disappointed to say the least, because I usually like the unusual twists and turns that original fairy tales have. I think what bothered me about the original was that the changes didn't seem to further develop the plot or make it more complex. It seemed random and unnecessary and I guess that's why I felt annoyed when I finished the text. 

Oh well. Maybe next time Grimm Brothers, until we meet again.