Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Monday, February 27, 2017
Sunday, February 26, 2017
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
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.
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.
Monday, February 20, 2017
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.
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.
Sunday, February 19, 2017
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.
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.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
Sunday, February 12, 2017
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.
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.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Saturday, February 4, 2017
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)