Reflections on Decoding Disney - Addressing Plot Holes

Spring 2017 semester (and my freshmen year) is finally coming to an end! Undoubtedly, one of the highlights of my freshmen year has been my WR101 Decoding Disney class. I love that this class is threefold: first, at a macro level, we explore the Walt Disney Corporation as a whole, and how its values and agendas change over time or vary according to the sociopolitical climate; second, we delve into the micro level and analyze the messages brought across each Disney film as well as how the WDC’s values are reflected in its films; third, in both analyzing Disney films and reading scholarly / popular articles on Disney, we learn - and apply - writing skills, particularly with regards to creating “academic conversations” (yes Prof Andres, this phrase has been deeply ingrained in my mind!)

In all, I’m so grateful to (i) Duke, for giving me the first registration window that I needed to even get a shot at securing a place in this class, and (ii) Prof Andres for being such a wonderful, fun, passionate instructor. In light of my usually computer science and math intense curriculum, it’s always refreshing to learn about the Disney world. But to quote Walt Disney:

We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths. - Walt Disney

 

Who knows when I will take another humanities class, but I certainly look forward to fully making use of Duke’s liberal arts curriculum.

As this is my last blog post, I thought it would be fitting to share my responses to a list of Disney “plot holes” on a Buzzfeed article. (*Note: I didn’t respond to all points)

1. Maybe the biggest one of all — we know that Ariel can read and write, since she signs Ursula's contract. Why doesn't she search for a quill and parchment, or even WRITE IN THE SAND, when she meets Prince Eric?

Good question - Ariel literally can’t think of her (new) feet. According to the Huffington Post, even Disney animators realized what a blunder they committed.

2. Despite being told NUMEROUS times not to go to the West Wing in the castle, WHY does Belle go anyway — and then acts surprised when the Beast is mad at her for doing so?!?

Beauty and the Beast was among the series of Disney princess films released during the 1990s amidst the rise of the Third Wave Feminism. The “New Wave” Disney princess heroines, including Belle, assumed the “feisty, ambitious princess” persona. My guess is that Disney wanted to further show that Belle, an inquisitive girl who has always led a mundane life, really wanted to “explore the unknown”, although curiosity killed the cat. I guess she was more shocked at Beast’s furiosity, but I nonetheless agree that she was silly.

4. Everything that the Fairy Godmother transformed reverted back to its original state at the stroke of midnight — except Cinderella's glass slippers. Why didn't they turn back?

Perhaps the Fairy Godmother wanted to leave Cinderella something to remember the night by. Also, Cinderella needed her glass slipper (singular) to match her other one she left behind!

8. Why didn't Cinderella keep her chill when she heard Prince Charming was looking for her? If she had kept her cool, her Stepmother wouldn't have locked her up!

Cinderella is a desperate damsel-in-distress; we probably should be less critical and recognize that she has been confined to domestic roles the majority of her life.

9. On that note, why did Prince Charming have to search far and wide for Cinderella and check EVERY single woman's foot in the kingdom? If he was searching for the love of his life, wouldn't he at least have remembered her facial features and that she was blonde?

Well, Cinderella had a completely different hairdo that night, and perhaps Disney wanted to highlight the glass slipper as a symbol - Quora user Jose Geraldo Gouvea believes that it symbolizes “graciousness (because she could walk with them without shattering them), purity (because they were not made of the leather of dead animals) and sincerity (because glass is transparent).”

12. A smaller one, but troubling nonetheless — how was Mulan able to wipe her makeup off with her sleeve in one smooth motion?

Come on, this is pretty trivial. Why can’t Mulan be dexterous?

13. The timeline in Beauty and the Beast seems to be totally messed up. For starters, the Beast is cursed when he is a young boy (probably about 11 years old) — yet there's a human portrait of him in the castle as a young man! We need answers.

Hmm...Beast could have just been a very mature-looking 11-year-old.

15. OK, this is just a matter of practicality — if Elsa built an all-ice castle, wouldn't that mean her bed was just a block of ice? WHAT ABOUT HER TOILET? It just doesn't seem comfortable!

Stay out of her privacy! Let her love her ice.

16. Swinging back to Ariel. King Triton is LEGIT scary when he discovers her grotto. Why is he SO angry when he destroys her prized possessions?

King Triton is obviously a very overprotective father; he probably sees Ariel as his “little girl” and isn’t ready to let her go. Also, he’s probably fearful of the world on land, and fears for Ariel’s safety.

19. And finally, this was suggested by more than one Community user: How the HELL do some Disney characters fall in love and marry each other after barely knowing one another?

I ask myself the same question all the time…

But on a more serious note, this was mainly prevalent in the earlier Disney movies, such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), Cinderella (1950) and Sleeping Beauty (1959), that showcased the idea of “Love At First Sight”.

Although The Little Mermaid (1989) still held onto the notion of LAFS, we see an improvement with the “New Wave” Disney heroines. With Belle, Pocahontas, Tiana, Mulan and Jasmine, Disney started to focus more on the development of romance between the princesses and their loved interests, showing that it takes time to get to know one another.

Pocahontas and Earth Day!

http://disneymoviesanywhere.tumblr.com/post/159863797831/run-the-hidden-pine-trails-this-earth-day

Tiana and Naveen

http://disneyismyescape.tumblr.com/post/159843561277/disney-princess-meme-33-kisses-tiana-and

The Real Princess Tiana

https://soulsofneworleans.tumblr.com/post/159484203961/leah-chase-is-a-legend-in-new-orleans-from

All Pixar Films are Linked

The signs as Classic Disney Villains

http://fandom-zodiac-signs.tumblr.com/post/123601608619/the-signs-as-classic-disney-villains

Disney Villain Apologist

http://dovewithscales.tumblr.com/post/158235919957/disney-villain-apologist

Capitalism in Wreck it Ralph (2012)

I felt that Wreck it Ralph was incredibly reminiscent of a capitalist economy and revealed many parallels to contemporary society and politics.

Particularly, I felt the film highlighted the inherent and inevitable imbalance of social status and recognition between the working class and the upper-middle class in a capitalist society.

http://entitledrichpeople.tumblr.com/post/158780824928/capitalism-requires-a-group-of-workers-whose

Ralph is representative of a working-class person with great aspirations of moving up the social ladder, but is ultimately neglected and frowned upon by society. He is programmed to act as the bad guy; his only skill is wrecking things, thus he cannot change his status in society, no matter how hard he tries to gain respect or make others recognize how important his role is.

http://disneymoviesanywhere.tumblr.com/post/158930704135/wreck-the-negativity

The imbalance of power and social status is created, or exacerbated, when members of the upper-middle class suppress and stray away from the working class (like how the commoners in the game look down on Ralph), resulting in the marginalization and exploitation of the working class.

On the other hand, Felix the Fixer, is representative of an upper-middle class person who cannot relate to and empathize with the struggles of the working class. Although he seems to be a nice guy, and it’s apparent that he treats Ralph with respect, he otherwise has a certain apathy towards Ralph’s plight.

http://disneybound.co/post/154614127133

Besides Felix and Ralph, the characters of Vanellope and Turbo remind us of the dirty fight for power in the politics of greed, particularly in the corporate world.

Turbo, overcome by jealousy and excessive greed, sabotaged a newer arcade game, which caused both his game, Turbo Time, and the newer game to be unplugged. Eventually, he infiltrated another game, Sugar Rush, by reconfiguring the game code to make himself king. In doing so, he reprogrammed Vanellope, the rightful princess-ruler of Sugar Rush, to be a glitch.

Obviously, Turbo, not Ralph, is the real “bad guy”. But it’s noteworthy that like Turbo, Ralph tries to exercise his own free will by attempting to infiltrate another game and steal a star. Like Turbo, Ralph also ends up endangering other people’s lives. Disney demonstrates that when humans become to preoccupied with gaining social status, they invariably become selfish and unconcerned with how this impacts on others around them.

Meanwhile, Vanellope is deluded into thinking that she was born, and will always remain, a glitch. She is basically rendered powerless. But Disney not only shows how she has the courage to overcome the odds and fight the system, but also does so through her own efforts, unlike Ralph who tries to “steal” social recognition.

http://stars-wisdom.tumblr.com/post/127065584135

Here, Disney highlights a dual message: we should all reach for the skies, but must do so through our own individual efforts and not exploit the success of others.

Feminist Portrayals in Disney's Frozen

When the film was released, Disney’s Frozen (2010) was widely lauded as being refreshingly “feminist”.

Today I'm going to explore whether Elsa and Anna depict feminist portrayals:

Yes: Disney emphasizes the need to embrace one’s individuality
Elsa initially is ashamed of her magical superpower; she sees it as a threat to the safety of those around her, especially Anna. As a result, she isolates herself and suppresses her magical superpower by wearing gloves. However, Disney in some ways portrays Elsa as an empowering feminist role model as she eventually frees herself from her inhibitions and embraces her magical superpower.

Disney portrays Elsa in a somewhat similar manner to Belle from Beauty and the Beast, who embraces her bookish personality despite being judged and labelled as odd by all the villagers.

https://wnda-maximov.tumblr.com/post/157540708225

Yes: Or...is Disney also emphasizing the need to embrace one’s sexuality?
Disney could also suggesting that Elsa, freeing herself from her duties as a queen, may have escaped and created her own ice palace in order to freely express her sexuality.

Many critics have suggested that Elsa’s song, “Let it Go”, is a coming out metaphor. There’s been a social media movement to make Elsa explicitly gay in Frozen 2, the sequel to the first movie, and to #GiveElsaAGirlfriend, as Disney has, for decades, faced increasing pressure to create more diverse characters.

Side note: Josh Gad, who plays Gatson in Beauty and the Beast (2017), recently confirmed that his character is gay in the movie.

Yes: Disney reiterates that true love is more than just romance
Disney seems to be redefining “true love”; from making Maleficent deliver Aurora’s “true love’s kiss” instead of Prince Charming, Disney makes Elsa Anna’s true love as her hug thaws Anna.

Through this transition, Disney shifts away from constructing plots to revolve around romance, and instead depicts familial, specifically sisterly, love.

http://freudianslip-13.tumblr.com/post/159312679281/by-britteny-lee

No: Unlike Maleficent, Elsa is not really a redeemable villain
Objectively speaking, Elsa is actually a villain in the film; she engulfs Arendelle in an eternal winter, freezes Anna’s heart (albeit accidentally).

It could be inferred that like Maleficent in Disney’s Maleficent (2014), Disney portrays Elsa as a redeemable villain by highlighting her remorse (after being led to believe that she killed Anna) as well as her saving Anna. However, it’s noteworthy that unlike Maleficent, Elsa unintentionally saves Anna. Further, while Maleficent actively rescues Aurora from danger, Elsa does not even bother with Anna’s safety.

No: Anna is still the typical, foolish Disney Princess
After falling head-over-heels with Prince Hans, Anna so easily and hastily accepts Prince Hans’ proposal.

I thought it was throwback to Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid and Snow White (who fortunately, in the film, were not shown in their respective films as having been duped by their love interests).

Redefining Villainy in Maleficent (2014)

I felt that Maleficent (2014) was one of Disney’s best attempts at portraying females, what more female villains. Well done, Disney.

In Essay #1; I explored how Disney subverts the traditional female villain narrative in Disney’s Sleeping Beauty (1959) by retelling the original narrative from Maleficent‘s perspective in Maleficent. In doing so, I argued that Disney debunks the traditional “Evil Queen” villain trope and reinvents Maleficent as a redeemable villain protagonist and an empowering feminist model.

Here’s why I think so:

1. Disney grants Maleficent a backstory (strongly suggesting that she is a victim of rape)
Angelina Jolie, who plays Maleficent, confirmed this interpretation in an interview with BBC Radio when she noted that Maleficent having her wings ruthlessly ripped off by King Stefan “was a metaphor for rape”.

Its noteworthy that Maleficent does not have wings in the original Sleeping Beauty. By illustrating the link between Maleficent’s freedom and her wings, Disney shows how without her wings, Maleficent loses her freedom and agency. Consumed with hatred and revenge, she rises from the ashes of defeat and despair to become the menacing dark “Evil Queen”.

https://elena-gia.tumblr.com/post/127502763264

Yet, when Maleficent reevaluates her life, recognizes that her vision has long been shrouded by hatred and revenge and learns to love again, she recovers from her deepest wounds. In the end, she not only reclaims victory over King Stefan, but also reclaims all that she has lost, including her wings and her humanity and emerges as stronger and more resilient woman.

2. Disney shows that Maleficent capable of extraordinary motherly love
Surreptitiously watching over Aurora, Maleficent, rather than the three fairies, proves to play a crucial role in Aurora’s upbringing and survival.

Notably, Maleficent’s dislike for Aurora gradually evolves into maternal feelings. When a fifteen-year-old Aurora finally meets Maleficent, the feelings are mutual and she instantly acknowledges her as her “fairy godmother”. In a twist of events, Maleficent, instead of Prince Philip, delivers Aurora’s “true love kiss” and proves to be Aurora’s true savior.

Here, Disney depicts an emerging surrogate mother-daughter relationship between Maleficent and Aurora. Disney even renders Aurora’s biological parents’ somewhat useless since they don’t play a substantial role in Aurora’s upbringing.

http://cocomingox.tumblr.com/post/128070528052

3. Disney makes Maleficent a redeemable character
The most important change that Disney brings to Maleficent is making Maleficent recognize and admit her own mistake.

After forming a surrogate mother-daughter relationship with Aurora in the woods, Maleficent wholeheartedly, but vainly, attempts to revoke the curse on Aurora, and expresses remorse for casting a curse on her in the first place. In the pivotal kissing scene, Maleficent lets go of her pride and confesses to Aurora, “...what I have done to you is unforgivable. I was so lost in hatred and revenge...I swear, no harm will come to you as long as I live.”

By demonstrating Maleficent’s ability to overcome the character flaws that define her in the first place, Disney deconstructs the notion that villains, including “Evil Queens”, are incapable of change. Consequently, Disney debunks the traditional “Evil Queen” villain trope by portraying Maleficent as the redeemable and relatable villain protagonist, who finally reverts to her original goodness and re-earns her wings when she shows that she can love again.

Possible April Fool's Day Disney Jokes

http://disneyismyescape.tumblr.com/post/159075575577/i-wanted-to-make-a-fake-disney-news-article-for

Beauty and the Beast - Singaporean Style!

Here's a glimpse of Belle and Beast speaking Singlish (Singaporean English). 

Just to clarify: Singlish is not an actual language but is merely colloquial! 

Tokyo Disneyland's Japanese Identity

I mentioned in my first blog post that I’ve always been intrigued by how Disney theme parks and characters seem to present themselves differently in varying cultures.

Today I want to explore the ways in which Tokyo Disneyland is constructed to fit in with aspects of Japan’s culture: Japan’s collectivistic culture and her kawaii culture. 

Japan’s Collectivistic Culture
Japan, like many East Asian countries, highly values collectivism, whereby hard work and harmonious interpersonal relationships, especially familial ties, are highly valued.

Tokyo Disneyland opened on April 15, 1983, a period when Japan’s economy was booming and consumer spending was at its peak. An LA times article dated April 12 1994 shared that “Walt Disney Productions has helped write a new chapter in Japanese social history by popularizing the idea that family outings can be fun,” an idea resonant with Japan’s collectivistic culture.

Further, according to the same article, since the theme park opened, Tokyo Disneyland’s enormous success can be largely attributed to its prime metropolitan location and its highly dense population. Its often reported that Japanese workers are amongst the most hardworking in the world and most willing to work long hours, hence Tokyo Disneyland offers Japanese citizens an escape from reality and an opportunity to disengage from their stressful and hectic lives.

Notably, one of Tokyo’s Disneyland’s main attraction is Cinderella’s castle, which according to a BBC article, is “rumoured to have been chosen because the princess’s qualities of duty and a strong work ethic would resonate more deeply in Japanese culture than Sleeping Beauty, whose castle is featured in the centre of Disneyland California.” 

Japan’s Kawaii Culture
Kawaii refers to the quality of cuteness in the context of Japanese culture. The most popular Disney characters in Japan include Minnie Mouse and Mickey Mouse, Winnie the Pooh, Chip and Dale and Donald Duck. One characteristic I think these characters all have in common is that they are all perceived as lovable and innocent characters, which undeniably aligns with Japan’s kawaii culture.

When I visited Disneyland in Tokyo six years ago, I remember noticing that classic Disney princesses are typically popularized as being pretty, cute and innocent, rather than the Western image of them being classy and adventurous. I also remember that I thought the waitresses in the restaurants I visited in Tokyo Disneyland were all dressed in a kawaii fashion. Many of them were clad in maiden outfits and had pigtails. 

Additional points
I read that until 2002, Tokyo Disneyland had a unique attraction named “Meet the World”, which was located in Tomorrowland and offered visitors an “18-minute chronicle of Japan's history of diplomacy and trade with other countries.” However, the attraction was shut down in 2002 and demolished and replaced by a Monsters Inc. attraction in 2006.

Although I never got to see “Meet the World”, I imagine it must have been a crucial aspect to Tokyo Disneyland. I’m wondering if this demonstrates Disney’s cultural appropriation; perhaps Disney wanted to do away with making Tokyo Disneyland uniquely Japanese as possible, and instead sought to uphold Disney’s American image and representation.

5 Elements of a Likeable Main Character

http://thatkatiecooney.tumblr.com/post/158791699253/the-5-elements-of-a-likable-main-character

Should Belle have chosen Gatson?

When we put things in context...should Belle have chosen Gatson?

Here's a powerpoint presentation that examines the Beauty and the Beast narrative towards the end of 18th century France.

Paternalism and Pro-active Females in Pocahontas (1995)

Last semester, as part of the FOCUS class on humanitarian challenges, I took a class titled “The Limits of Good Intentions”. We explored the both the limitations and unintended consequences of aid and foreign intervention, with a focus on the 2010 Haitian Earthquake. As I watched Pocahontas (1995), I felt that I could connect many of the topics I learnt in my FOCUS class to the film's content.

In particular, the film struck me as demonstrating paternalism in a foreign land.

Some quotes, particularly verbal exchanges that involved John Smith, that stood out to me in the film included:

“There’s so much we can teach you!” (John Smith)

And the fiery exchange between John and Pocahontas:

John Smith: We've improved the lives of savages all over the world.
Pocahontas: Savages?
John Smith: Uh, not that you're a savage.
Pocahontas: Just my people!
John Smith: No. Listen. That's not what I meant. Let me explain.
...
John Smith: Savage is just a word, uh, you know. A term for people who are uncivilized.
Pocahontas: Like me.
John Smith: Well, when I say uncivilized, what I mean is, is-
Pocahontas: What you mean is, not like you.

"Savages", "uncivilized", "so much we can teach you"?? I thought these terms really reflected paternalistic views held by developed nations, particularly Anglophone countries, towards “less developed” countries. In fact, I would go as far as to say that I wouldn’t use the term “less developed” in this context, because the Powhatan tribe is visibly perfectly content and satisfied with their mode of civilization. This is all very ethnocentric; the imposing of one’s culture (British) on another society.

Moreover, I thought the film was really romanticising aid. For some reason, Pocahontas reminded me a lot about Avatar (2009).

While both plots have many parallels - the annexing of foreign land, the male lead sympathizing with the local tribe - Jake in Avatar actually took the time and effort to fully immerse himself into the customs of the Na’vi tribe, while John Smith’s main motivation for switching allegiance was Pocahontas. I also felt that the romance between John Smith and Pocahontas started of because both were attracted by a person from an “exotic” land.

Furthermore, I felt that the film once again reinforced the idea that Disney female heroines have to be proactive in saving their male partners’ lives, a topic we’ve been discussing in class. Just like the portrayal of Belle in Beauty and the Beast (1991) as being responsible for humanizing Beast, Pocahontas seems to be the only one who is actively trying to negotiate peace between the Powhatan tribe and the British invaders.

In the same vein, while in Avatar, Jake actually actively takes part in the efforts to fight against the American Resources Development Administration, John Smith is pretty passive-aggressive in the film. He is reluctant to talk to Chief Powhatan because he thinks it will be futile, and after he gets captured he is basically useless from then on. In the end, Pocahontas herself has to intervene, threatening her father by almost sacrificing herself at John Smith’s execution.

Race, Socioeconomic Status and Feminism in Princess and The Frog (2009)

I’ve heard a lot of criticism regarding Disney’s portrayal of race in Princess and the Frog (2009). But I also feel that there’s also a lot to discuss regarding the depictions of socioeconomic status and feminism in the film.

Here are my thoughts on the the film :

Racial concerns

I read an article arguing that by creating a black princess but not a black prince, Disney is suggesting that black love is impossible. But personally, I didn’t see the film coming across as such. Instead, I saw the romance between Tiana and Prince Naveen as an interracial relationship. Granted, Prince Naveen’s race is ambiguous, but he seems to have a latino accent and his skin color, which is paler than Tiana’s but darker than typical white skin color, suggests that he may be Latino or Hispanic.

I also thought that the power dynamic in Charlotte’s and Tiana’s relationship was refreshingly unique. Despite their racial differences, Charlotte, as a privileged white debutante, treats Tiana as her best friend. Disney shows that Charlotte respects Tiana, even though they may not be of equal status. 

Although the film has generated much controversy with regards to its use of the Louisiana voodoo as a plot device, I agree with this blogger’s argument that Disney demonstrates that “Voodoo is essentially a neutral practice that can be used for good or evil” (evil being that practised by Facilier and good being that practised by Mama Odie). I felt that this complementary relationship, in a way, debunked the “bad evil Voodoo” stereotype.

Socioeconomic status
There seems to be an emergent trend throughout the film - the exchange of services. Tiana agrees to kiss Frog Prince Naveen solely to get the money she needs to buy the mill. Lawrence readily betrays Prince Naveen and succumbs to Dr. Facilier in exchange for assuming his life.

It seems to me that in the film, different socioeconomic classes are pitted against one another; but can you blame them? Both Charlotte and Lawrence are desperate to climb the social ladder of success. The main difference between the two is that Lawrence chooses the “wrong” path by making an agreement with Dr. Facilier, while Tiana does not succumb to Dr. Facilier’s offer of granting her her dream restaurant.

I noted that only a princess, and not just a “true love” like in Sleeping Beauty (1959), can kiss Prince Naveen to save him. This all shows how highly valued socioeconomic status was in the early twentieth century.

Daddy’s Girl Stereotype
Disney has be known to perpetuate the “Daddy’s Girl” stereotype, as demonstrated in The Little Mermaid (1989) and Beauty and the Beast (1991) I found it intriguing how this stereotype was applied not only to Charlotte but also to Tiana.

From the get-go, it’s obvious that Disney reinforces several “white girl” stereotypes such as the portrayal of Charlotte as a materialistic and spoilt “daddy’s girl”. However, in a more subtle manner, Disney also suggests that Tiana’s dream is ultimately inherited from her father.

Portrayal of Race in Aladdin (1992)

When I was young, I remember being mesmerized by Disney’s portrayal of an “exotic land” in Aladdin (1992); it wasn’t until I became older than I realized that the manner in which Disney portrayed the Middle East in the film was very, very inappropriate.

Supposedly a film that celebrates racial diversity and inclusion, I felt that the film particularly reinforced the North-South divide between the Anglo sphere and the Global South. The film's titular song “Arabian Nights” is a complete testament to this:

“Where they cut off your ear
If they don't like your face
It's barbaric, but hey, it's home.”

What’s strange is that all the main characters in Aladdin all have Anglo-American accents. Disney appears to have “glorified” Aladdin and Jasmine by whitewashing their portrayals, as Robert Egert notes, "Most of the Arab characters have exaggerated facial characteristics - hooked noses, glowering brows, thick lips - but Aladdin and the princess look like white American teenagers."

Here’s my breakdown of the respective characters and their portrayals:

Aladdin

Role: Protagonist / “Prince”
Race: Arabian
Accent: American
Physical features: Paler skinned (compared to the other Arabian characters and Arabians in general)
Character description: a poor street orphan who steals food to survive. Despite being a thief, is known to have a heart of gold (perhaps, literally, since he pretends to be Prince Ali of Ababwa in order to win over Jasmine). Is carefree and jovial despite his humble background.
Closest cousin(s): Robin Hood, who like Aladdin, is kind-hearted albeit being a thief

Jasmine

Role: Protagonist / Princess
Race: Arabian
Accent: American
Physical features: Is paler skinned just like Aladdin. Very typical attractive and innocent Disney princess. Wears a very revealing outfit, despite the conservative values of most Middle Eastern societies.
Character description: As the Princess of Agrabah, Jasmine is feminine, innocent, intelligent.
Closest cousin(s): Ariel from The Little Mermaid (1989), as she has been confined to the underwater kingdom all her life under her father’s control

The Sultan

Role: Supporting character
Race: Arabian
Accent: English accent
Physical features: Has the palest complexion of all characters. Short and plump with a very white beard and moustache.
Character description: Jasmine’s father who adores on Jasmine. Very gullible and easily taken advantaged of, which seems to be reinforced by his physical appearance and age (despite the wise old English man stereotype).
Closest cousin(s): Maurice (Belle’s father) from Beauty and the Beast (1991)

Jafar

Role: Antagonist / Villain
Race: Arabian
Accent: Strong English accent
Physical features: has a darker complexion compared to the other Arabian characters. Is sinister looking and slim-faced, and has a hooked nose, well-defined and sharp jaw line.
Character description: Cunning, deceiving and greedy for power and wealth.
Closest cousin(s): Ursula from The Little Mermaid (1989)

The Genie

Role: Supporting character

Race: Arabian??

Accent: Very ambiguous (Mental Floss describes Robin Williams’ accent as “questionable”)

Physical features: blue-skinned, muscular, has a thin black beard

Character description: Omnipotent as he can grant a designated “master” three wishes, acts as Aladdin’s saviour and confidante

Closest cousin(s): Fairy Godmother from Cinderella (1950), Ursula from The Little Mermaid (1989)

Adorable Girl Sings to Beauty and the Beast

LeFou as a Gay Man in Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Apparently, it’s been confirmed that LeFou in Disney’s remake of Beauty and the Beast, played by actor Josh Gad, will be the first openly gay character in Disney film.

Unsurprisingly, LeFou’s portrayal as a gay man has generated a wave of controversy, with Russia considering a ban of the film and with a drive-in theatre in Alabama refusing to air the film.

Here’s my yay / nay regarding LeFou’s portrayal in the movie:

Yay
Needless to say, this marks a watershed moment in Disney filmmaking. Disney’s viewership consists largely of young children, hence in maintaining its appeal to such a target demographic, the corporation has long sought to shy away from controversy by constructing “innocent” movie plots. Hence, it does indeed mean a HUGE deal that the LGBTQ+ community is finally being recognized in the Disney arena.

What I find especially brilliant is that according to Gad, in the film, it’s not explicitly confirmed that LeFou is gay. Rather, LeFou seems to struggle navigating his sexuality, oscillating between his reverence for Gatson as a hyper-masculine and hetereosexual man and his deep-seated desire to kiss Gatson. Gad seemed to have improvised LeFou’s portrayal as a gay man as he stated, "There was nothing in the script that said ‘LeFou is gay.’” In another interview, Gad further explained, “He's confused about what he wants. It's somebody who's just realizing that he has these feelings."

Nay
Be it in the original Beauty and the Beast or in the remake, LeFou, is still reduced to comic relief. The Daily Dot made a very valid point about how LeFou’s role as “the fool” or “the madman” serves as a direct contrast to Gatson’s role as a embodiment of “heterosexual masculinity”. To me, LeFou’s role is rather auxiliary and primarily serves to glorify Gatson’s portrayal.

In my opinion, the constant humiliation and degrading of LeFou doesn’t portray the LGBTQ+ community in the best light. Personally, I would have preferred it if Gatson, instead of LeFou, was portrayed as gay - a story of a man who experiences both internal and external pressure to conform to the mould of heteromasculinity, but struggles to break out of that stereotype.

On an interesting note, BuzzFeed argues that LeFou and Gatson were both gay all along (please excuse the vulgar language). In the article, Buzzfeed Staff Mathew Guiver argues that Gatson’s outward projection of hypermasculinity and his pursuit of Belle was simply a mask for his homosexuality, and a means to derail suspicion from his relationship with LeFou. Could this be true?

--------

All in all, I guess this addition of a gay character in Beauty and the Beast isn’t perfect, but at least it’s a start.

Happy International Women's Day!

Why cartoon characters wear gloves

Give us Something Different, Disney

http://simplyredqueen.tumblr.com/post/157986273805/i-dont-really-understand-the-point-of-the-recent

Disney's Belle is an ***hole

http://missveryvery.tumblr.com/post/157992129574

Crazy Disney Movie Idea

http://johns-posh-boy.tumblr.com/post/157973736595/okay-so-i-basically-had-the-best-idea-ever

Story of my life...

Beauty and the Beast

Not All Kids Dream of Disneyland

Why Lindsay Lohan should Play The Little Mermaid

Rumor has it that Lindsay Lohan desperately wants to play The Little Mermaid.

Last Monday, Lohan posted a picture of a side-by-side comparison between her and Ariel on Instagram. The post generated a huge wave of comments, which were mostly disparaging and comical.

#thelittlemermaid

A post shared by Lindsay Lohan (@lindsaylohan) on Feb 19, 2017 at 3:24am PST

Haters will disagree, but I believe that Lohan is actually suited to play Ariel. My analysis shows that there are striking parallels between Ariel and Cady in Mean Girls (2000). Here’s why:

1. She knows what it’s like to desperately please a man
As Cady in Mean Girls (2004), Lohan knows what it’s like to fall head over heels over a man and do everything to please him. Cady transforms herself into a “plastic”, pretending to be dumb in order to get close to Aaron Samuels. While Ariel sacrifices her voice, Cady compromises her education and the values she’s always stayed true to.

Lohan should also be familiar with the gender stereotypes that dictate how females should present themselves to males. While Ariel brings to prominence the “submissive quiet woman” stereotype, Cady shows that “dumb blonde girls” seduce men more easily.

2. She understands how suffocating parents can be -- but also the thrill of rebelling against them
Just like Ariel, Cady has always been the obedient and well-behaved daughter. Yet, both seem discontented with living the “goody-two-shoes” life and decide to rebel against their parents, who obviously do not condone their behavior.

And they sure look like they enjoy their adventure.

Cady’s desire to “explore the unknown” -- specifically her assimilation into the “plastics” milieu -- is quite like Ariel’s quest to move to the human world. Both have a common goal - of winning over their crush/love, be it Aaron Samuels or Eric.

But in doing so, it’s clear that both embrace and enjoy their new identity. Although, in the end, Cady comes to recognize the toxic environment of the “plastics” and returns to being a grounded girl, while Ariel remains a “daddy’s little girl” with King Triton granting her legs and permission to marry Eric and move to the human world.

3. She can relate to the pain of watching another girl steal your crush
When Cady finally gains acceptance into the “plastics” and tries to win over Aaron Samuels, Regina George steals Aaron Samuels away from her. Ouch.

Sounds familiar? In The Little Mermaid (1989), Ariel gave her all to move to the human world, only to witness Ursula impersonate Ariel with her voice and deceive Eric into thinking that she is Ariel. However, ultimately, Cady realizes staying being her true self is the best way to attract a man, while Ariel still continues to rely on her father to bring together Eric and her.



So, why the fuss? Lohan’s role as Cady in Mean Girls (2000) seems to have prepared her well for the titular role of Ariel.

The Beauty and the Beast Craze Continues...

Disneyland Shanghai

Beauty and her Daddy!

The Little Mermaid - Feminist or Anti-Feminist?

Watching The Little Mermaid, I couldn’t help feel that the movie seemed to demonstrate anti-feminism more than feminism.

It’s clear from the get-go that Ariel is dissatisfied with life under the sea. She feels suffocated because of her overprotective father, King Triton. Instead, she is fascinated with and curious about the human world, collecting human items such as forks, hairbrushes from shipwrecks. The grass is greener on the other side, to say the least.

But I felt that the moment she encounters Eric and falls in love with him at first sight, the lines between feminism and anti-feminism become blurred.

On one hand, Ariel’s rebellion against her father, despite his disapproval of Ariel interacting with the human world, can be viewed as her defying a patriarchal society where a man dictates a woman’s life. Ariel is free-spirited, brave and determined, and Disney moulds her into the epitome of a girl seeking independence and breaking the “glass ceiling” limiting her freedom.

But is this really the case? My take is that The Little Mermaid demonstrates some fairly skewed feminism. It seems that Disney strives to portray Ariel as a feminist, but sadly fails at realizing that her portrayal still perpetuates many gender stereotypes and a patriarchal society.

As a mermaid princess, Ariel leads a very privileged life underwater, but doesn’t fully appreciate it. Just like Cinderella, she falls in love with a guy at first sight she knows absolutely nothing about. Worse of all, she literally gives up her voice in order to be with Eric. She is obviously doing everything she thinks will please him, and chooses to defy her mermaid heritage to join the human world.

Further, it’s noteworthy that Ariel is quite the damsel-in-distress. She is constantly saved by others, particularly King Trition who sacrifices his power for her, and Eric who kills Ursula. How can a strong female be portrayed if she can never save herself?

There also seems to be a “transfer of ownership” from King Triton to Eric over Ariel - even though Ariel breaks free from the restrictive control of her father, she eventually still becomes dependent on another man. Throughout the film, her life seems to center around a man. Is she truly free?

Even Ursula recognizes the sexism and misogyny that exists in the “real” human world. When she wants Ariel to sacrifice her voice, Ursula reassures her that her stereotypical pretty female looks are all that she needs to attract a man. She goes on to sing, “The men up there don't like a lot of blabber / They think a girl who gossips is a bore / Yes, on land it's much prefered / for ladies not to say a word.”

Ultimately, Ariel‘s decisions are far from wise. In the film, Ariel achieves her “happily-ever-after”, but this is completely unrealistic. At least the original The Little Mermaid, in which Ariel’s sacrifice does not pay off at all, highlights the important message that throwing away your life for another man whom you hardly know is dangerous and overly-idealistic.

Beauty and the Beast (1991) rides on the 1990s Third-Wave Feminism

I thought that Beauty and the Beast (1991) was a refreshing watch - after watching Cinderella (1950), which I felt was emphasized the rigid and prescriptive gender roles placed on women during the 1950s, I personally thought that Beauty and the Beast (1991) rides on the burgeoning third wave feminism in the 1990s, which sought to include women with diverse identities and backgrounds in the feminist discourse.

In the film, Belle is intellectual and fiercely independent. Despite living in a dull provincial town and being frowned upon by all of neighbors, she pursues a life of excitement and adventure. “Yes, different from the rest of us is Belle…” Belle is a “strange”, “funny”, “peculiar” and “odd” girl, but Disney emphasizes how Belle embraces her individuality. Not just a commoner, she seeks to stand out from the crowd.

What stuck out to me is the film’s exploration of a woman’s power and influence over a man. So Belle has two suitors - Gatson, the macho and handsome villager, and Beast, her prisoner-turned-lover. From the get-go, Belle outright rejects Gatson. Not sure if Disney debunks the “rushing-into-marriage” notion that it seemed to highlight in Cinderella (1950) and Sleeping Beauty (1959), but Belle is vehemently against and repulsed by Gatson’s marriage proposal.

I’ve read several interpretations that Belle’s rejection of Gatson is a metaphor for a rejection of hypermasculinity. Disney is not only shifting away from perpetuating rigid gender stereotypes, but also demonstrating how women, including Belle, are shattering these stereotypes.

In addition to the relationship between Belle and Gatson, Disney also illustrates the shift in power dynamic from Belle being Beast’s prisoner to Belle civilizing Beast. As soon as Belle takes her father’s place as prisoner, Beast noticeably takes a liking to Belle. Her presence seems to soften his heart as he strives to please her, offering her a proper bedroom and inviting her to dinner. It’s noteworthy that Belle does not submit to Beast, but instead fiercely stands up to him when appropriate. She even is bold enough to venture into the forbidden west wing despite Beast’s warning. Incidentally, I found it intriguing how Belle was strong enough to single-handedly pull beast up from the patio (slay, Belle, slay).

Further, the film seems to suggest that the notion of women being dependent of men can be reversed i.e. a woman can hold the key (or rose) to a man’s life/future. Does Beast see Belle as his savior and escape from being doomed to being a beast eternally? This contrasts with my analysis of Cinderella (1950) where I proposed that Cinderella saw her marriage to Prince Charming as a means to obtain a sense of security; it seems that the roles are now reversed and Beast is desperate to find a lover.

But what’s great about the film is that Belle and Beast both take the time to get to know each other before they realize they’re in love. Disney also shows how Beast doesn’t force himself on Belle, as he releases Belle so that she can save her father. Ultimately, Beauty and the Beast (1991) reflects Disney’s path towards more progressive values surrounding gender roles.

Gender roles in Cinderella (1950)

As an 18-year-old teenager rewatching Cinderella (1950), my knowledge of the prescriptive and rigid gender roles heavily emphasized during the 1950s makes me realize how the content and portrayal of women in Disney films are very much influenced by the prevailing sociocultural context in which in the film is produced. These are the three main messages I took away from the film:

1. Women belong in the household
The cult of domesticity reigned in the 1800s and early 1900s and saw a resurgence in 1950s, especially after World War II. Upon getting married, women were expected to stay at home and perform household chores. Just like Snow White (Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was released in 1937), Cinderella’s role as a servant demonstrates such a prescriptive gender role that women are expected to be housewives.

Further, Cinderella is much like her dog, Bruno, in that she upholds her sense of loyalty in serving Lady Tremaine. Cinderella clearly loathes being confined to the domestic sphere, for she keeps lamenting, “You know the orders…”. But she nevertheless continues to obey and submit to Lady Tremaine. She surely has ample of opportunities to run away, but she choose not to.

2. Marriage = “escape”, “security”?
It’s interesting how Disney first introduced Cinderella singing “A Dream Is A Wish Your Heart Makes”, because I believe that Cinderella’s dream becomes clear when we understand the prevailing attitudes surrounding gender roles in the 1950s.

In light of the rigid and prescriptive gender roles back then, marriage was perceived as obtaining a sense of security in one’s life. Yet, this was often tied to how many women saw marriage as the best outlet to escape poverty.

Is “the dream that [Cinderella wishes] will come true” an attachment to a handsome, rich and in all highly eligible man? In the film, every girl wants to be Prince Charming’s wife, including Cinderella and her step-sisters. Cinderella herself fights to try on the glass slipper, seemingly desperate to prove herself and escape the household.

In the end, Cinderella indeed achieves her “happily ever after” by marrying Prince Charming.

But let’s put this into context - Cinderella is obviously rushing into marriage, with a guy she doesn’t even know that well. Such impulsivity will not serve her well in real life. You never know whether she will continue to be confined to the household with the royal family....

3. Looks determine a woman’s value and self-worth
When Prince Charming sees Cinderella, albeit from a far distance, he’s mesmerized and instantly falls in love with her. No need to get to know each other, but looks are key. This idea that the prince falls in love with the princess solely based on looks is not only applied to Cinderella but also to Snow White and Princess Aurora in Sleeping Beauty (1959).

Disney gives Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora flat, one-dimensional personalities as all are the typical kind, gentle and traditionally feminine woman. Yet, the princes don’t even consider the kind and gentle personalities of Cinderella, Snow White and Aurora. The only ones who do seem to really understand Cinderella are the animals like Jaq, Gus and Bruno.

Disney and Youtubers

http://mandoreen.tumblr.com/post/157296121583/maker-studios-severs-ties-with-more-youtubers-by

Alice in Drugland

http://disneyladiesfromlastnight.tumblr.com/post/157278418793

Representation in Disney films

Last year, the producers of the movie Doctor Strange, which was distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, decided to a replace the Tibetan male character “The Ancient One”, as portrayed in the original comic, with a Celtic female version of it. When Tilda Swinton was cast as The Ancient One, this controversial decision generated a wave of negative backlash against what was evidently “whitewashing”.

In response to this, director Scott Derrickson explained that adapting the original character as the comics portrayed him would be perpetuating the Asian Fu Manchu stereotype as well as drag the film into the controversial Tibetan sovereignty debate. Derrickson wanted to change the character to an Asian woman, but felt that an older Asian woman would invoke the Dragon Lady stereotype, while a younger Asian woman would be perceived as exploiting Asian fetish and "a fanboy's dream girl". He acknowledged the whitewashing and stereotyping of asians in film, saying that "Asians have been whitewashed and stereotyped in American cinema for over a century and people should be mad or nothing will change.”

However, he also took the opportunity to emphasize the “diversity” of the film's cast, in terms of both gender and ethnicity. Perhaps what I found most alarming was his comment, “What I did was the lesser of two evils, but it is still an evil."

It’s no secret that Disney has long sought to “diversify” its image, like Aladdin, Pocahontas, and most recently Moana and Zootopia. Most recently, Disney publicly promised that the upcoming live-action Aladdin remake will not feature “a white guy”. The Star Wars film Rogue One features a diverse cast, including stars including Donnie Yen, Riz Ahmed, and Diego Luna. However, it seems to me that Disney is now choosing which aspect of a person’s intersectional identity takes precedence over another.

Tilda Swinton is clearly no exception too. I read this article in which the columnist argues that Tilda Swinton "used feminism to downplay concerns about race". I think that Swinton’s reframing the discussion around gender ignores the salient issue of the underrepresentation of actors/actresses of asian descent.

After Swinton was cast, Derrickson felt obligated to find a way to include asian-american Benedict Wong in the film. But frankly, I feel that the director went to such great lengths to address potential controversies and scrutiny regarding The Ancient One, yet in the process created even more controversy. How ironic.

In my opinion, Disney’s efforts to remain apolitical, inclusive and diverse are backfiring. Perhaps Disney should just stop trying to “control” nature and perfect their image, and Disney would be much more well-received.

Walt Disney

http://linda-darnell.tumblr.com/post/155840131903/on-fridays-after-work-walt-disney-would-often

Disney's Transformation

http://blog.collegehumor.com/post/157021992176/5-ways-disney-movies-have-completely-changed-over

Me on V-Day

Inside Out and Mental Illness

I watched Inside Out after a friend of mine had told me that it was a movie about a “screwed up” mind. But what I took away from the movie was Disney’s addressing on mental illness.

The movie focuses on 5 emotions in 11-year-old Riley’s head: Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger, and Disgust, whereby Joy the titular character, is Riley’s dominant emotion. When Riley’s family moves from Minnesota to San Francisco, Joy goes at lengths to ensure her move is smooth and joyous while keeping Sadness away from the control center. However, Sadness starts touching Riley’s previously happy “core memories”; Joy somewhat gets into a brawl with Sadness and they are accidentally banished from the headquarters. With only Anger, Fear and Disgust left in her state of mind, everything starts to go downhill, and Riley spirals in a series of bad decisions that go against everything about her personality.

But what struck me was that Sadness didn’t seem to be intentionally making Riley sad. She actually didn’t seem to want Riley to be sad. She is remorseful and profusely apologizes, explaining that explaining that she doesn’t know why she’s doing it and that she doesn’t mean to mess things up.

I soon realized that Disney was trying to address an important issue in today’s dog-eat-dog world; the issue of mental illness, especially amongst teens. It was trying to emphasize the importance of feeling and embracing sadness: when we keep denying ourselves the right to be vulnerable and sad, our feelings instead bottle up, causing us to further escalate into a spiral of depression. Our pursuit of happiness should not necessitate fighting and pushing away our negative emotions.

To me, the portrayal of Joy and Sadness working together to get back to headquarters reminded me that our highs and lows, our strengths and weakness are packaged deals. As Joy finally gave the control to Sadness, when we finally acknowledge that sadness is an inherent and natural component of our feelings, we are more able to rationalize our thoughts and actions. When we embrace sadness, we come to realize that after the rain, comes a beautiful rainbow.

Inside Out was a reassuring move on Disney’s part to address issues not just pertinent to teenagers but also to adults alike. Many of us live with unhealthy “screwed up” minds, but do not allow ourselves to embrace vulnerability.

However, I do wish that Disney could have better depicted Riley being in control of her own mind, rather than the emotions literally controlling her mind. To some extent, it does seem to give off the message that the power of our emotions on our actions and behaviour are insurmountable.

Happy Lunar New Year!

Happy Lunar Year #mulan #lunaryear

A photo posted by DISNEY NEWS🎉🎉 (@disney__news) on Jan 29, 2017 at 4:52pm PST

Trump and Finding Dory

The day after President Trump enforced the infamous travel ban, he reportedly held a screening of Finding Dory for WH staff and their families.

Here's what Ellen had to say about it:

This is exactly why Ellen won the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Here's an Upworthy article if you want to read more: http://www.upworthy.com/ellen-used-finding-dory-to-send-a-vital-message-to-trump-about-immigration?c=ufb1

BuzzFeed: 8 Drug References Found In Disney’s Alice In Wonderland

Here's a BuzzFeed article identifying the various drug references in Alice in Wonderland.

The Force Awakens...

The Disney Devil

http://waltdisneyconfessions.tumblr.com/post/135961957067/i-hate-the-disney-corporation-for-a-lot-of

Zootopia - Diversity in Disney

Amusing photo I found on 9GAG on "Honest Titles" for 2017 Oscar Movies:

Taken from 9GAG

Also, here's an interesting read on "5 Lessons from Disney's Zootopia", written by a diversity and inclusion advocate: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/5-lessons-from-disneys-zootopia-kelley-johnson

Disney Villains and Evil

Disney villains tend to consistently fit into a “villain” trope. Appearance wise, these include those that are considered unattractive in contemporary society (eg. being overweight/severely underweight) and exaggerated body features (https://anatomyofevil.wordpress.com/ goes into great detail). They also seem to 1) habor intense jealousy 2) possess great power and 3) are overcome with astronomically high levels of greed and obsession. These villains are juxtaposed against the protagonists, who just like the villains, fit into a particular “main character/hero/princess” trope.

When we consider these characteristics more closely, what’s scary is that the “good” characters - whom we identify as being relatable - may in fact not be as relatable as we might want them to be. Meanwhile, the villains, whom we intrinsically attempt to distance ourselves from, may actually have more relatable features than we realize or want to admit. As Forbes explains in The Aesthetic of Evil, most of us subconsciously or consciously desire to remain “morally pure” because our moral compass drives us to do so. But in reality, good and evil both coexist within each of us.

In my opinion, Disney characters, good or evil, represent two ends of a spectrum that each human being constructs based on their sense of self: on the most “desirable” end, the Disney princesses and he male leads are the epitome of impeccable romance, looks, personalities, and on the most “undesirable ends” the villains the representation abject life dissatisfaction, castaways and basically a life gone wrong.

This rigid representation of evil in classic Disney villains made me think about Eddie Carbone in A View From The Bridge. In the play, Miller depicts Eddie as a protagonist with a tragic flaw; he attempts to break up his Catherine’s (his niece) relationship with her Italian immigrant boyfriend Roldopho at whatever cost, reporting Roldopho to the immigration bureau. Carbone can be considered the villain; but interestingly, Miller sets up the play to evoke the audience’s sympathy for Eddie, and to mitigate any disgust they may have for Eddie. In doing so, Miller’s illustration of Eddie’s character downfall because of his immense love for Catherine adds a more emotional dimension to the play that the audience can relate to. But in my opinion, the emotional dimensions of classic Disney villains are often severely downplayed, thus we are less likely to be motivated to relate to them; it’s almost akin to masking of our own insecurities and idiosyncrasies deep down.

Having said that, I felt that the Maleficent (2014) movie was fantastic in taking a completely new and unconventional approach to the portrayal of Disney villains. By by delving into Maleficent’s story, thoughts and emotions, the audience becomes forgiving towards her, and the uncovering of her “good” within her “evil” exterior makes Maleficent far more appealing to the audience. It’s great that Disney is putting in more effort to achieve this: the lines between good and evil are blurred in Moana (2016) where Maui can be interpreted as either a villain or a hero and as it plot progresses, it becomes clear that Te Fiti is in fact not a villain.