This course has completely changed the way I think of Disney, and villains as a whole. I could have gone my whole life not realizing the racism and stereotyping present in Disney films, or in other movies if it is not obvious. In this way, most people who are ignorant to this watch the movies similarly to children because it goes right over their heads. While I am somewhat sad that opening my eyes to the criticisms of some of my favorite movies ruins them for me, I feel even more uneasy that other people do not know about them. Giroux was the first person to introduce me to the world of Disney criticism. I was too skeptical of Disney criticism at the time to really give him a chance, so I am interested to find out my opinions on his article after completing this course. I wonder if I would agree more with his ideas.
Through our analysis of The Little Mermaid and Cinderella, I learned about how the villains are shown as gender divergent. Both woman villains are masculine in some ways, like Ursula's deep voice and seemingly transgender character, while Lady Tremaine has sharp, man-like features. After watching Pocahontas and Aladdin, the racial problems with the Disney movies becomes quite clear. Disney's white washing also is apparent after learning that the character Aladdin is based on Tom Cruise. Tarzan and Wall-E which present humans as villains are less problematic than the older films Disney created. In the beginning of the course, I did not see any similarities between the films that were paired together for watching. Now it is clear how they connect with one another, and I am interested to see what kind of villain we will discuss for Wreck-It Ralph. I believe the villain in that movie is society and I am better able to identify and think about types of villains after having taken the majority of this course.
I really enjoyed reading Carl Hiaasen's Team Rodent. I think after reading that I book was the first time I really started to believe that Disney is in fact corrupt. I will always still love Disney and Pixar movies, but Disney as a company is slightly tainted to me. I do not worry as much about the content of the movies and controversy with that because watching movies in chronological order shows how Disney is only improving and becoming more progressive. The closer the movies were released to today, the harder they are to critique; however, there will always be critics out there, like the ones who are pressing for a gay Disney princess. As society evolves, the newer movies may become less progressive and possibly offensive in ways we had not anticipated. When Cinderella was released, the ideas about woman's role were very different than they are today so no one blinked an eye at the line that said sewing is for the women. The future may evolve to have different gender roles once again, but movie writers cannot account for these unknowns. At any rate, I will continue to use my skills from this class, which have made me more observant, to look out for the stereotyping present in villains in other movies I watch.
Sunday, November 27, 2016
The Origin Stories of Disney Movies
I read an article on Buzzfeed called 12 Disney Movies That Have Horrifying Origin Stories. I knew two already from class (Cinderella and The Little Mermaid) so the rest were fun to check out too. Sleeping Beauty was certainly the most horrifying to read about. She was basically raped and impregnated in her sleep- disgusting.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Celebration has Mold
Surprisingly Disney's theme town Celebration has more problems (not really surprising.) As we learned in Carl Hiaasen's book Team Rodent, Celebration wasn't exactly built with the best foundations. As someone quoted in the article says, "We bought cabins on the titanic." Couldn't have said it better myself. Celebration is being attacked by mold and leaks, which are even separating balconies from their houses. The article I read on Celebration's problems also reminded me of my dorm, Bell Tower, because the houses in Celebration have to put their garbages behind their houses because there is no place for garbage in a Disney world. My dorm only has one garbage room on the first floor to uphold the nickname "Hotel Bell." It is seriously inconvenient for me because I live on the third floor.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Wreck It Ralph Live Reflection
- I have never seen this movie but my friend loves this movie so I'm excited
- The movie comments on class structure because Felix was born into his role and Ralph was born into the bad guy role and it is difficult for class mobility.
- The bad guy meeting is like alcoholics anonymous, which is strange for a kids movie. This is an example of how Disney, specifically pixar, has started to make movies that cater to older audiences as well- probably to make more money.
- I think it is really cute and creative how they go to other games through the wires.
- The random security check where Ralph gets chosen parallels with how Muslims are always chosen for "random" security checks in airports.
- It's so funny how the guy from Step Brothers plays Ralph and Kenneth from 30 Rock plays Felix. Kenneth is the perfect guy to play Felix and his character is very similar to his character on the TV show.
- It is progressive how a woman is in charge of all of the men in the game Hero's Duty, but she calls them ladies in a demeaning way, insulting herself and her gender.
- Ralph actually does turn out to be somewhat of a villain because he is messing up the arcade and other games, but unintentionally. Does this still make him a villain? If he is not the villain who is? Gene?
- Sue from Glee plays Sergeant Calhoun- another perfect casting. The character even looks like Jane Lynch.
- There is even a comment on police brutality because he is portrayed as the "bad guy" which is like how police are said to be biased prejudice against minority races.
- It is so cute how Vanellope's disease is called "Pixlexia."
- They totally missed a candy pun when Vanellope says, "You son of a gun." She should have said "son of a gum."
- The Nesquick sand as quick sand and the Laffy Taffies that follow laughter are so creative.
- Vanellope sees Ralph's cart as good even though he thinks it is bad. This is symbolic of how she sees the good in him and he sees the best in her when no one else does.
- Kids probably wont even understand what the clutch pedal is and will either be confused or it will go right over their heads.
- The cops in the Candy game are donuts, oh my God. This movie is so creative the creators thought of everything.
- The angrier Vanellope gets the more she glitches.
- When Vanellope calls Ralph a bad guy it shows how sometimes you have to be the bad guy for someone else's good, even if it is not appreciated. It is similar to a strict parent who is protective over their child.
- The candy game is a total rip off of Mario Cart.
- Even though the code has Vanellope as a princess, she still decided who she wanted to be. This teaches the lesson to not listen to what people tell you you are, just like Ralph. He didn't accept his role as the bad guy.
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Disney Wants to Buy Netflix
First Disney wanted to buy Twitter, now it wants to buy Netflix. Isn't Disney rich enough? Can it just be happy with what it has and stop trying to take over the world. This article talks about how Disney buying Netflix is bad for the movie industry because Disney is going to monopolize the movie industry. The author even writes, "Netflix is a powerhouse in their own right, but should Disney take control, they'd be one step closer to world dominance."
Reflection of Amy Davis's Tarzan Chapters
Amy Davis's first chapter of her book Handsome Heroes and Vile Villains: Men in Disney's Feature Animation, "On Wooden Boys and Assistant Pig Keepers," talks about boys in Disney movies and their transition into men. The intro to this chapter is two and half pages long and I felt it was very drawn out and could have easily been condensed; however, it is somewhat understandable considering this is a book and not an essay on its own. I also felt the intro did not really relate to the rest of the chapter, or to the Tarzan section at least, which talks more about his relationship with Jane than his masculinity and how it affects young boys. I feel that this chapter relies heavily on plot synopsis, which takes up about four pages of it. After I realized little of importance is written on these pages, I started to skim until I got to content again.
Chapter four had a bit more analysis, but also had some major issues. For one, the main thesis was very hard to find, as well as the "so what" that goes along with it. I am assuming that maybe the end of the chapter would perhaps have the so what in there. I am also assuming that the thesis is something along the lines of villains fitting into the categories that Davis created for them. I like this idea and like how she also clearly lays out the different types of male, human villains, but she doesn't go into much detail explaining what each is and kind of assumes you understand what she means by the labels. Some are self-explanatory, such as "Magically-Dangerous Villains," but others are more confusing like the "Comic Villains."
David distinguishes between the "Enemies of the Earth" villains and the "Comic" villains by saying that the former are evil because of selfishness (not personal) and the latter because of a vendetta against the hero (personal). I understand how this makes sense for the "Enemies of the Earth" because the villain is evil towards an entire group or nature; however, Davis does not explain why a "Comic" villain is evil on a personal level. What about that is comical or "amusing" as David explains "Comic" and "Idiot" villains are for the audience.
I appreciate the back and forth contrasts of Tarzan and Clayton and think this is effective; however, I do not really see where he was going with this point, as in the next paragraph David moves completely away from this idea to talk about how Clayton could be considered the good guy in Hollywood movie (also not naming any specific examples of this). Then at the end of that next paragraph Davis gets back into how Clayton is a foil for Tarzan. This should be at the end of the previous paragraph about the contrasting traits of the characters. Davis also never identifies Clayton as an example of the "Enemies of the Earth" villain, which I can only assume she believes based on the evidence she uses. This is another example of how she strays too far away from her thesis without connecting her body paragraphs back to her main idea.
Despite all of my criticisms of Davis's organization, I do like two of the points she makes. I like that she points out that Tarzan has an American accent even though he was taught English by three British people and gives a reason for why Disney might choose to do this. She suggests that Disney compares Tarzan to the colonized Americans, another place colonized by Britain. Another point I like is how Davis brings up that Tarzan thinks Clayton's name is the gunshot, which symbolizes Tarzan's association of Clayton with violence.
Chapter four had a bit more analysis, but also had some major issues. For one, the main thesis was very hard to find, as well as the "so what" that goes along with it. I am assuming that maybe the end of the chapter would perhaps have the so what in there. I am also assuming that the thesis is something along the lines of villains fitting into the categories that Davis created for them. I like this idea and like how she also clearly lays out the different types of male, human villains, but she doesn't go into much detail explaining what each is and kind of assumes you understand what she means by the labels. Some are self-explanatory, such as "Magically-Dangerous Villains," but others are more confusing like the "Comic Villains."
David distinguishes between the "Enemies of the Earth" villains and the "Comic" villains by saying that the former are evil because of selfishness (not personal) and the latter because of a vendetta against the hero (personal). I understand how this makes sense for the "Enemies of the Earth" because the villain is evil towards an entire group or nature; however, Davis does not explain why a "Comic" villain is evil on a personal level. What about that is comical or "amusing" as David explains "Comic" and "Idiot" villains are for the audience.
I appreciate the back and forth contrasts of Tarzan and Clayton and think this is effective; however, I do not really see where he was going with this point, as in the next paragraph David moves completely away from this idea to talk about how Clayton could be considered the good guy in Hollywood movie (also not naming any specific examples of this). Then at the end of that next paragraph Davis gets back into how Clayton is a foil for Tarzan. This should be at the end of the previous paragraph about the contrasting traits of the characters. Davis also never identifies Clayton as an example of the "Enemies of the Earth" villain, which I can only assume she believes based on the evidence she uses. This is another example of how she strays too far away from her thesis without connecting her body paragraphs back to her main idea.
Despite all of my criticisms of Davis's organization, I do like two of the points she makes. I like that she points out that Tarzan has an American accent even though he was taught English by three British people and gives a reason for why Disney might choose to do this. She suggests that Disney compares Tarzan to the colonized Americans, another place colonized by Britain. Another point I like is how Davis brings up that Tarzan thinks Clayton's name is the gunshot, which symbolizes Tarzan's association of Clayton with violence.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Disney Quiz
I only got 4/9 I guess I'm not as skilled in Disney movies as I should be for someone taking this class.
QUIZ: CAN YOU GUESS THE DISNEY MOVIE FROM THESE TWO WORDS?
QUIZ: CAN YOU GUESS THE DISNEY MOVIE FROM THESE TWO WORDS?
Live Reflection of Wall-E
- This is my mom’s favorite movie because she loves the Hello Dolly references- she made me watch that movie when I was little because of Wall-E. I wonder how much attention that movie got because of this movie.
- for such a high tech future, Wall-E seems like not that advanced a machine- so old and rusty looking shows he’s there for awhile maybe he looked new and tech at one point
- weird Disney would make such a direct social commentary on what the future will be like if we keep going the direction we are- seems a bit deep for a Disney/pPxar movie- almost scifi
- when he puts the spork in the middle of the spoons and forks because he doesn’t know where it goes I laugh a little
- Disney clearly believes machines can have feelings because Wall-E imitates the movie hello dolly and looks at the screen in a longing way- his eyes are also pointed down naturally so he always looks a little sad and lonely which adds to his cute factor
- acts kinda drunk like when he is low on battery
- his sound of recharging is like a mac turning on
- Disney chose to include the bra scene? in a children’s movie? just why
- weird that when he finds the plant he knows not to take it out of it’s dirt
- chases the red light like a cat
- robot also has the emotion of fear and desire for self-preservation when the ship comes down from the sky
- I wonder why EVE didn’t scan the cockroach- i wonder if he would have come up on her system because he is alive or if it’s just for plants
- if there weren’t any closed captions to say when EVE is saying in the beginning i would have no idea- it sounds like random beeping noises- it reminds me of when people try to talk with their mouth closed
- EVE also seems to express the emotion of anger when she can’t find a plant
- funny how there are twinkles in this life where almost nothing survived because twinkies are said to be able to survive anything
- “BnL”: buy N large is the battery from Toy Story in Buzz Lightyear’s back
- funny how when wall-e breaks the woman out of her screen she is so confused as to where she is and never noticed they had a pool
- funny when he oversleeps so he just turns the time back to morning so he can do the morning announcements
- how would jogging around the ships track make them get their bones back?
- i’m surprised they were excited to go back home I would have thought they like their lazy life on the ship
- you see babies in the movie but not many kids
- funny when the people start rolling off of their chairs
- I don’t think this would ever happen to society where they would live in chairs and onlyy eat through drinks- people like sports and being active and food too much
Reflection of Tarzan
- I don’t like the opening song in the beginning of the movie. I think it is too upbeat and I was not paying attention because I did not think the movie had even started yet. I was watching with Nicole (my roommate) and asked if I could fast forward through the opening credits when she told me, "It started already!"
- It kinda seems like the name of Tarzan came out of nowhere when the mom gorilla named him. It was also a very quick response with almost no thought to it.
- I was wondering if the song "You’ll Be in my Heart" by Phil Collins was originally from this movie and thought that it definitely couldn't be. But then I thought that was weird if Disney borrowed another song because it usually makes all of it's own music. I was surprised to learn the song actually is originally from Tarzan. It turned into such a popular song- maybe one of the most popular of all of the Disney movies because it is so popular that can be considered unaffiliated with the movie at all by unknowing people like myself.
- I thought it was funny how Disney had the elephants having the intellectual conversation about where pirañas live because elephants are supposed to be wise
- I felt bad throughout the beginning part of the movie because poor tarzan didn’t ask to grow up in this world and he isn’t accepted. What other option does he have though? There is no man village to go to like in The Jungle Book. But as we find out later in the movie, there is somewhere he can go to be with other humans.
- I wonder why Tarzan has dreadlocks in the movie. Is that what happens when hair is really dirty and unkept? I also am curious if this can be seen as offensive to anyone.
- Disney loves making the tiger the villain who wants to kill the human- just like Shere Khan in The Jungle Book. The two movies have so many similarities they almost seem like different versions of each other and Disney decided to just release both because they couldn't pick a favorite.
- Why don’t the gorillas help him when he’s getting attacked by the tiger? They just sit there and watch and luckily he wins but I don't understand why they left him to fight alone.
- When he meets Jane he is able to imitate the way he talks. Just because he’s a human doesn’t mean he’d be able to talk like one instantly. I think it would be something like the way a deaf person talks at first.
- It's also confusing because he and the gorillas have a common language which is english for the sake of the audience being able to understand, but in reality its not because he can’t speak english. This is probably confusing for children when he actually does speak real English.
- It was ironic when the gorilla's called humans primitive beasts.
- Tarzan wears a loincloth just like Mowgli.
- Why does Jane call Tarzan him the apeman when she knows he was raised by gorillas. I guess gorilla-man didn't have a good enough ring to it?
- I found it a little weird when she was drawing him and fell in love with the "apeman."
- It was very unrealistic he would be able to learn to read and be man so fast. It is probably relatable to kids though because they are learning to read and talk so he could be a role model to them.
- Tarzan chooses love over the rational decision when he decides to bring the humans to see the gorillas in order to keep Jane from leaving, even though he knows this is a bad idea.
- Tarzan talks in gorilla for the first time in movie when he acts more like a human. The English he has learned with humans now became his base language so when he talks to the gorillas again, it is not in English it is in gorilla sounds.
Reflection on Hidden Details in Disney Movies
Disney (Pixar, specifically) is known to incorporate characters from its movies into its other movies very subtly. I watched a youtube video called 10 Amazing Hidden Details In Disney Films #2. I really like this added touch Disney includes in its movies to create some kind of Disney world and place everything in its context within it. This reminds me of the theory of Disney trying to make the world its own world. I picked my favorites to share with you.
The video first talks about A Bug's Life, a pretty forgotten about Pixar movie. Pixar tried to make it relevant by putting it in the background of Toy Story 2 as a children's picture book Mrs. Potato-head reads. A Bug's Life's Pizza Planet delivery truck is also featured in Monsters Inc as one of the doors Randall goes through. This movie wasn't working for the public the first time it was released, maybe Pixar should have just given up. To put the movies in context, Monsters Inc and A Bug's Life would be made up stories within the world of Toy Story. Is Disney trying to tell me that toys can actually talk in real life? Or is Toy Story a made up place inside another world?
BUT... this world is then paradoxical because Toy Story shows up in Monsters Inc, as well. Boo has a cowgirl Jessie doll that she hands to Sully in the movie. I don't think Disney really planned out how all of these movies work with one another specifically, but just decided to place random attributes in other movies. Maybe the creators were just bored. Toy Story is also in Finding Nemo. Buzz Lightyear is spotted as a toy in the waiting room in the dentist's office. Toy Story is an easy one to incorporate because toys can be put into almost movie. I wonder if they move around when the human characters are offscreen. A comic book with Mr. Incredible on the cover is also spotter in Finding Nemo. This would imply that The Incredibles are a made up superhero group within the context of the "real" Disney/Pixar world in Finding Nemo. Ratatouille also has an Incredibles logo shown on Linguini's underwear. I guess the world of Ratatouille is on the same "realness" level as Finding Nemo.
A weird one that is foretelling of the future is in Wall-E. The company that is seen all over the ship is "BnL," or Buy N Large. In Toy Story, Buzz's batteries are from the BnL company. I guess Pixar was trying to show that Wall-E could be the future of Toy Story's world in Pixar universe.
Also the article,
The video first talks about A Bug's Life, a pretty forgotten about Pixar movie. Pixar tried to make it relevant by putting it in the background of Toy Story 2 as a children's picture book Mrs. Potato-head reads. A Bug's Life's Pizza Planet delivery truck is also featured in Monsters Inc as one of the doors Randall goes through. This movie wasn't working for the public the first time it was released, maybe Pixar should have just given up. To put the movies in context, Monsters Inc and A Bug's Life would be made up stories within the world of Toy Story. Is Disney trying to tell me that toys can actually talk in real life? Or is Toy Story a made up place inside another world?
BUT... this world is then paradoxical because Toy Story shows up in Monsters Inc, as well. Boo has a cowgirl Jessie doll that she hands to Sully in the movie. I don't think Disney really planned out how all of these movies work with one another specifically, but just decided to place random attributes in other movies. Maybe the creators were just bored. Toy Story is also in Finding Nemo. Buzz Lightyear is spotted as a toy in the waiting room in the dentist's office. Toy Story is an easy one to incorporate because toys can be put into almost movie. I wonder if they move around when the human characters are offscreen. A comic book with Mr. Incredible on the cover is also spotter in Finding Nemo. This would imply that The Incredibles are a made up superhero group within the context of the "real" Disney/Pixar world in Finding Nemo. Ratatouille also has an Incredibles logo shown on Linguini's underwear. I guess the world of Ratatouille is on the same "realness" level as Finding Nemo.
A weird one that is foretelling of the future is in Wall-E. The company that is seen all over the ship is "BnL," or Buy N Large. In Toy Story, Buzz's batteries are from the BnL company. I guess Pixar was trying to show that Wall-E could be the future of Toy Story's world in Pixar universe.
Also the article,
These 43 Disney Secrets Were Hiding Right In Front Of Our Eyes. I Can’t Believe I’ve Never Noticed!
,which has a pretty self explanatory title, has some pretty interesting Disney/Pixar secrets that you've probably never noticed.
In the closing credits of Frozen, Disney thought they got away with writing about Kristoff's theory that all men eat their own boogers. The writers of Disney must be very bored, or just curious to see who really pays attention. Maybe they are even trying to attract attention to the credits to get people to stick around and see their names come onto the screen and get some recognition.
One of my favorites that I have seen before on Twitter is Sid from Toy Story showing up in Toy Story 3 as the garbage man. Everyone hated Sid- it serves him right. We get to see him get what he deserved.
The vultures in The Jungle Book were supposed to be voiced by The Beatles but it never happened because of scheduling issues. This is very interesting to me because there is a theory that the vultures represent The Beatles, and not in so much of a positive light. They are seen as opportunistic animals who have the capacity to do good but do not. I'm surprised they ever agreed to the role. They probably hadn't read the script yet.
This is something I have never heard before- There are not many mothers in Disney movies because Walt Disney felt guilty about purchasing the house that killed his mother from carbon monoxide poisoning. It all makes so much sense now. Why is this the first I am hearing of this?
This might be the cutest one of all. The voice of Boo from Monsters Inc was actually a toddler. Disney had to mic her up and follow her around to get all of what they needed for the movie. I will definitely watch the movie differently next time with that in mind.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Drones in Shape of Christmas Tree at Disney Springs
This looks pretty cool and kinda makes me wish I celebrated Christmas. I never knew that Disney did special stuff for the holidays. I wonder if they are doing anything for Chanukah.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Halloween Costumes
My friend Amanda & I dressed as Sully & Mike for Halloween! We thought we were being original with our homemade costume only to find a multitude of others dressed as Mike & Sully on Franklin Street.
The Muppets Present: Great Moments In American History! Great Idea...
The Muppets are going to tell you their unique take on the Founding Fathers. This sounds like such a good idea because Disney never screws up history! Seriously it would do Disney good to just stick to urban legends and not actual stuff going on in the world. But maybe Disney doesn't care about being criticized, as long as it is making money.
Here's the article
Here's the article
Summary of "Pocahontas: The Disney Imaginary" by Pushpa Naidu Parekh
I really did not enjoy this piece as a whole. It was long, drawn out, and the language used put me right to sleep. Some of the claims were also simply wrong. Parekh's portrayal of Pocahontas was much more savage than the actual movie shows her as. Paekh accuses Disney of depicting Powhatan as "unreasonable and temperamental; fitting therefore in his practice of 'savage' acts of violence, such as preparing to behead John Smith" (167). I do not agree with this statement at all. Powhatan wants to behead John Smith because one of the white men killed Kocoum, a member of their tribe. This death is justified, especially during that time period, and especially due to the tensions between the Native Americans and the British. They were practically at war with one another- it is not uncommon at all to kill a prisoner of war. This does not make Powhatan "savage," but in fact makes him civil for abiding by a similar law code to "an eye for an eye." If he had no law code or morals to live by, then he could be considered savage.
An argument that is not so bad in this article is the depicting Pocahontas as the "other." The argument is that the Pocahontas is only there to teach John Smith about his people's ethnocentrism and why it is wrong. Parekh writes, "Isn't her subjectivity merely an instrument for enlightening the narrow-minded English settlers?" (168). I do not fully agree with the argument in this case because the story isn't entirely centered around the British, the storyline mostly follows Pocahontas. However, this argument is similar to the one about women only being included in Disney movies for the gains of the man, either to be his prize, or to teach him a lesson. Either way, her life is devoted to his.
Parekh makes an assertion that Indian women are only seen as either an "undifferentiated mass of workers" or heroines who are "against their own people." Parekh then provides no evidence for this assertion and goes into the "other" argument. Finally the author comes back to it later in the next paragraph to back up the statement, but the reasoning for this bad organization is a mystery to me.
Parekh includes a list of movies five lines long when stating which ones include the story of Pocahontas saving John Smith. I guess this is to emphasize how common the story is, but it is not necessary. The author could have just used a footnote instead of wasting the reader's time.
The author does include interesting information when Parekh brings up that in other stories, Pocahontas is only a child of eleven or twelve and John Smith is twenty-five. The relationship would then be more father-daughter-like.... I'm hoping. Of course Disney had to change her age though, because what is a Disney movie without a love story?
Parekh makes a point about Disney perpetuating inaccurate ideologies that pervade into modern thinking. Most people do not agree that Disney is responsible for telling accurate stories; however, there is some merit to this argument. Disney movies are not documentaries so they hold no social obligation; however, they are very popular and stick with a kid throughout their life. But, even if they are not accurate, the movies draw attention to events children might otherwise not care about, which could spark real learning.
An argument that is not so bad in this article is the depicting Pocahontas as the "other." The argument is that the Pocahontas is only there to teach John Smith about his people's ethnocentrism and why it is wrong. Parekh writes, "Isn't her subjectivity merely an instrument for enlightening the narrow-minded English settlers?" (168). I do not fully agree with the argument in this case because the story isn't entirely centered around the British, the storyline mostly follows Pocahontas. However, this argument is similar to the one about women only being included in Disney movies for the gains of the man, either to be his prize, or to teach him a lesson. Either way, her life is devoted to his.
Parekh makes an assertion that Indian women are only seen as either an "undifferentiated mass of workers" or heroines who are "against their own people." Parekh then provides no evidence for this assertion and goes into the "other" argument. Finally the author comes back to it later in the next paragraph to back up the statement, but the reasoning for this bad organization is a mystery to me.
Parekh includes a list of movies five lines long when stating which ones include the story of Pocahontas saving John Smith. I guess this is to emphasize how common the story is, but it is not necessary. The author could have just used a footnote instead of wasting the reader's time.
The author does include interesting information when Parekh brings up that in other stories, Pocahontas is only a child of eleven or twelve and John Smith is twenty-five. The relationship would then be more father-daughter-like.... I'm hoping. Of course Disney had to change her age though, because what is a Disney movie without a love story?
Parekh makes a point about Disney perpetuating inaccurate ideologies that pervade into modern thinking. Most people do not agree that Disney is responsible for telling accurate stories; however, there is some merit to this argument. Disney movies are not documentaries so they hold no social obligation; however, they are very popular and stick with a kid throughout their life. But, even if they are not accurate, the movies draw attention to events children might otherwise not care about, which could spark real learning.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Finding Dory Deleted Scene
I can kind of see why this scene was deleted... it's cute but very unnecessary, a bit repetitive, and the writing just isn't great.
Swim beyond the tank with Hank in this deleted scene from #FindingDory, now on Digital HD and @DisneyAnywhere. pic.twitter.com/Uu1r3KFatw— Disney (@Disney) October 25, 2016
Moana Song Sneak Peak
A sneak peak of a song from the new movie coming out soon, Moana, was released on the Disney twitter! The music sounds slightly different from other Disney movie music but I like it. I'm so excited for the movie to come out!
ICYMI: See a Clip of the New #Moana Song #YoureWelcome: https://t.co/E5PUvxZ7Ae pic.twitter.com/c5L3jFzuMT— Disney (@Disney) October 25, 2016
Reflection on "The 10 Biggest Disney Controversies"
I found the article called "The 10 Biggest Disney Controversies", which is a pretty self explanatory title. In this article, the author includes a quote that I believe sums up most of the controversy with Disney as a whole in two ways. The author writes, "Unfortunately, many Disney films have not aged well." I believe this is the central problem with Disney films because kids rarely watch a movie and are outraged by the racism and stereotyping- only adults have this reaction. The author did not mean for this quote to mean "aged well" as in aged with the audience, but I feel it also applies to this interpretation. The author meant that the old Disney films, such as Cinderella, are not as well received by audience's now, but why should they be expected to be? They were made for the audience in those times, so how could the writers anticipate what would be socially acceptable in the future? The answer is they could not so this is an unfair standard to hold these movies to. If these messages are so outdated why do we keep watching them today? It is because people still get enjoyment out of these movies so maybe the viewers should be held accountable for keeping the old movies relevant, because the makers movies themselves could not have anticipated them to still be watched.
Number 10 talks about the crows in Dumbo and how they were all voiced by African-American actors, and the leader is voiced by a white actor. This is certainly a controversial issue for the people who picked the voices for these roles; however, to say that these voices had any effect of the viewers of the movie would be racist in itself. The audience should in most cases not be able to tell the race of the actors by their voices. I do not remember the movie well and this may be a naive point of view but the only thing the choice in voices should effect is the internal thoughts of the company on itself, or people who happened to have heard this information.
Number 9 talks about the drug references and imagery in the movie Alice in Wonderland. Alice eats mushrooms, and the caterpillar smokes Hookah. I think that the creators of Disney movies sometimes forget that adults, although they aren't the intended audience, do also see the movies. Adults who get the references to drugs see this movie. Maybe I should write a letter to Disney to let them know.
Number 8 discusses the racism towards Native Americans in Peter Pan. The red faced are just so wrong and not even accurate. I have never met anyone with a face color of that hue, that was just a major mistake.
Number 7 talks about Lady and The Tramp and the Japanese racism shown by the siamese cats. Even though these racist ideas are awful, it is kind of interesting to see how the thoughts of the country are shown through these movies, almost like a historical record. I wonder if studying Disney movies alone could be turned into a history class.
Number 6 discusses the apes in The Jungle Book, who some say represent African-Americans in American society and their struggle to be seen as more civilized. I have seen the movie and this connection seems fairly accurate. The movie is just general enough to not blow the cover off of this racism; however, there is definitely a vibe that is felt almost as if the apes are a gang.
Number 5 talks about the phallic symbols in The Little Mermaid. Apparently the castle looks like it has a penis on it. If this is on purpose I just do not understand. Were the animators bored and wondering if anyone would catch it?
Number 4 discusses Pocahontas. I knew we weren't getting out of this list without that movie being mentioned, for obvious racial reasons. I've already talked about this one in depth- to see more on that reference my reflection on the movie.
Number 3- Aladdin. Yes, another obvious choice for the list. The racism is just laughable to Arab groups who do not even take the movie seriously. Tom Cruise was the model for Aladdin, a Middle Eastern character- enough said.
Number 2 is a movie I haven't seen commentary on before, although I can imagine what would be said: Tangled. The argument in the article is about the female villain obsessed with being young and the unfeasibly skinny, young blonde princess. I don't really think this movie should be number 2 on the list, there really isn't that much material there.
*Sound the trumpets!*
Number 1 is......... The Disney Princesses! Not a movie but all of the princesses as a whole. The Disney Princesses have been said to set a bad example for all women by conforming to stereotypes; however, I feel this view will fall out of favor because Disney is getting smarter and evolving every day. There will always be criticism because of the size of the company and its relevance to society, but hopefully the criticism will start to gain less traction as Disney improves.
Number 10 talks about the crows in Dumbo and how they were all voiced by African-American actors, and the leader is voiced by a white actor. This is certainly a controversial issue for the people who picked the voices for these roles; however, to say that these voices had any effect of the viewers of the movie would be racist in itself. The audience should in most cases not be able to tell the race of the actors by their voices. I do not remember the movie well and this may be a naive point of view but the only thing the choice in voices should effect is the internal thoughts of the company on itself, or people who happened to have heard this information.
Number 9 talks about the drug references and imagery in the movie Alice in Wonderland. Alice eats mushrooms, and the caterpillar smokes Hookah. I think that the creators of Disney movies sometimes forget that adults, although they aren't the intended audience, do also see the movies. Adults who get the references to drugs see this movie. Maybe I should write a letter to Disney to let them know.
Number 8 discusses the racism towards Native Americans in Peter Pan. The red faced are just so wrong and not even accurate. I have never met anyone with a face color of that hue, that was just a major mistake.
Number 7 talks about Lady and The Tramp and the Japanese racism shown by the siamese cats. Even though these racist ideas are awful, it is kind of interesting to see how the thoughts of the country are shown through these movies, almost like a historical record. I wonder if studying Disney movies alone could be turned into a history class.
Number 6 discusses the apes in The Jungle Book, who some say represent African-Americans in American society and their struggle to be seen as more civilized. I have seen the movie and this connection seems fairly accurate. The movie is just general enough to not blow the cover off of this racism; however, there is definitely a vibe that is felt almost as if the apes are a gang.
Number 5 talks about the phallic symbols in The Little Mermaid. Apparently the castle looks like it has a penis on it. If this is on purpose I just do not understand. Were the animators bored and wondering if anyone would catch it?
Number 4 discusses Pocahontas. I knew we weren't getting out of this list without that movie being mentioned, for obvious racial reasons. I've already talked about this one in depth- to see more on that reference my reflection on the movie.
Number 3- Aladdin. Yes, another obvious choice for the list. The racism is just laughable to Arab groups who do not even take the movie seriously. Tom Cruise was the model for Aladdin, a Middle Eastern character- enough said.
Number 2 is a movie I haven't seen commentary on before, although I can imagine what would be said: Tangled. The argument in the article is about the female villain obsessed with being young and the unfeasibly skinny, young blonde princess. I don't really think this movie should be number 2 on the list, there really isn't that much material there.
*Sound the trumpets!*
Number 1 is......... The Disney Princesses! Not a movie but all of the princesses as a whole. The Disney Princesses have been said to set a bad example for all women by conforming to stereotypes; however, I feel this view will fall out of favor because Disney is getting smarter and evolving every day. There will always be criticism because of the size of the company and its relevance to society, but hopefully the criticism will start to gain less traction as Disney improves.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
The Jungle Book was Released Today!.. 49 Years Ago
Did you know The Jungle Book was the last movie Walt Disney oversaw? This short informational video is worth the watch!
Swing into fun today! #TheJungleBook pic.twitter.com/YxYHSP2TBf— Disney (@Disney) October 19, 2016
Reading Response to Li- Vollmer
I enjoy Meredith Li-Vollmer and Mark E. Lapointe's "Gender Transgression and Villainy in Animated Film" for the most part and think the organization of the scholarly argument is very neat and easy to understand. The format had headings and the essay started off with a lot of definitions, background information, and even a literature review. Then when Vollmer moved into the analysis section of her argument, she broke it up into six parts: "Physical Characteristics," "Costuming and Props," "Nonverbal Gestures and Body Position," "Activities," "Dialogue," and "Queering." Vollmer was analyzing a large sample of movies (10 animated movies) so organization is key in this essay. This method of organization also was a limitation in that it serviced to hide the fact that her examples were somewhat superficial and excused her from needing to go into deep analysis of how each movie has evidence of gender transgression.
The author's discussion of gender roles as a social construct is a good point that thoroughly relates to many conversations about gender and sex occurring in the world right now. Vollmer explains that our idea of what is "natural" is skewed by the conventions already set in place by society. I support this argument and wish it was more prominent and well-known to help those that struggle with gender identity. This point can be used to show that people do not need to identify with a different gender in order to do things/appear in a way that is unconventional for their gender. If more people realized that gender roles are simply constructs made up by society, fewer would feel the need to identify with the opposite gender in order to feel comfortable with themselves. Identifying with another gender is not to be confused with wanting a sex change, as these are completely different entities.
I appreciate the inclusion of the quote by Gross and Woods which asserts that abnormality is not a societal flaw, but just a societal label. This argument could also be used for a villain. Villains are typically believed to be societal mistakes; however, this new point of view would say they are only seen that way because they are different. Just because their beliefs do not conform with everyone else's does not mean they are "evil."
I liked Vollmer's inclusion of the definition of "Queer Theories" and also how she explained which definition she would be using to make her argument in the analysis section. She explained the word in terms of the LGBT community, and in general terms of it just meaning "different." I did not know the general definition so the inclusion of this background information made her argument more clear and understandable to the reader.
Overall, I liked the argument and I agree with the thesis; however, the evidence was weak in some places and I did not like how she went from strongest point to weakest point in her analysis. This leaves the reader feeling unsatisfied at the end of the essay instead of building up to the "ah ha!" moment where the reader that maybe was skeptical before finally gets on board.
The author's discussion of gender roles as a social construct is a good point that thoroughly relates to many conversations about gender and sex occurring in the world right now. Vollmer explains that our idea of what is "natural" is skewed by the conventions already set in place by society. I support this argument and wish it was more prominent and well-known to help those that struggle with gender identity. This point can be used to show that people do not need to identify with a different gender in order to do things/appear in a way that is unconventional for their gender. If more people realized that gender roles are simply constructs made up by society, fewer would feel the need to identify with the opposite gender in order to feel comfortable with themselves. Identifying with another gender is not to be confused with wanting a sex change, as these are completely different entities.
I appreciate the inclusion of the quote by Gross and Woods which asserts that abnormality is not a societal flaw, but just a societal label. This argument could also be used for a villain. Villains are typically believed to be societal mistakes; however, this new point of view would say they are only seen that way because they are different. Just because their beliefs do not conform with everyone else's does not mean they are "evil."
I liked Vollmer's inclusion of the definition of "Queer Theories" and also how she explained which definition she would be using to make her argument in the analysis section. She explained the word in terms of the LGBT community, and in general terms of it just meaning "different." I did not know the general definition so the inclusion of this background information made her argument more clear and understandable to the reader.
Overall, I liked the argument and I agree with the thesis; however, the evidence was weak in some places and I did not like how she went from strongest point to weakest point in her analysis. This leaves the reader feeling unsatisfied at the end of the essay instead of building up to the "ah ha!" moment where the reader that maybe was skeptical before finally gets on board.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Pocahontas Reflection
I had never even seen Pocahontas before I watched it for this class and I do not think I was really missing out. This movie almost felt like watching a documentary and seems like one of those obligatory movies Disney had to make to show its respect for Native Americans. However, something I did enjoy in this movie is that Pocahontas chooses her family instead of love. When John Smith is shot and has to go back to England to get treated, he foolishly asks her to go with him. John Smith probably would have died on the boat back and Pocahontas would be stuck in England without knowing the culture, or anyone there. She would have abandoned her family for nothing, so I am very proud of her for choosing the realistic prospect and not letting herself be influenced by love, as John clearly was.
I was surprised at the violence in this movie. I could not believe that there was a real death of a non-villainous character in the movie: Kocoum. It was shocking that Disney would include a real murder with a gun in a Disney movie. If there is death in Disney movies, usually it's the villain that dies and usually in a magical or non violent way, like by falling off a cliff or being poisoned.
I also found the skin color of the white people interesting in this movie. The villain, Governor Ratcliffe, had reddish skin, while a good character, John Smith, had normal colored skin for a white person. Even though the movie villainizes the white people for once in a Disney movie, they did not even make the villain truly white. Also there were some things in the movie I could see Native Americans taking offense to, such as, the talking tree. While Native Americans are very connected to nature and believe all living things have a spirit, they might find it a bit offensive to take it to the extreme and accuse them of believing a tree can actually talk to them. I could see that being interpreted the wrong way; however, it is a children's movie after all. Also, I noticed in one of the first few scenes that all of the Native American women looked the same- the only differentiators being weight and hairstyles. I think the animators could have put a little more time into that scene.
Russell Means, an Ogala/Lakota Sioux Indian and the first national director of the American Indian Movement, plays the part of Powhatan, Pocahontas's father in the movie. I find this very surprising because I did not look this up until after the movie because when I was watching I kept thinking about how Powhatan did not sound Native American at all. I guess this shows what I know about Native American culture and their accents.
I found the revolt against Governor Ratcliffe at the end of the movie very unrealistic. In real life, the movie would have ended with the British army slaughtering the Native Americans leaving no survivors. But this is Disney so that is not what happens in the movie.
Aladdin Reflection
So Jasmine is the Disney princess I got when I took the quiz. I am excited to see how true her character really is to my personality because I do not remember this movie- like at all. It's interesting how man in turban in the beginning breaks the fourth wall in order to explain historical setting/context of movie. This was probably a good idea because the target audience of the movie (kids) probably do not know much about this background information.
The beginning of the movie is a bit scary as it starts from the villain's point of view, something most Disney movies do not do. I never really hear of Aladdin as any kids favorite Disney movie which is understandable because Jafar is a pretty scary villain. I find it interesting that Aladdin has a narrow face, a pointy chin, and steals: all traits of a villain. I think Aladdin does not look like the typical hero with and wide jawbone because he is poor which makes him a different kind of hero in the eyes of Disney.
Aladdin equates being rich in the beginning of the movie with happiness because he is poor and does not know that money will not change his state of mind. When Jasmine is in her backyard she opens a bird cage and sets all of them free. This is very clear symbolism for her because she feels she is trapped and tries to run away to set herself free. In the movie Aladdin and Jasmine each possess freedom, but they have different kinds of freedom. Aladdin has "freedom to" in the beginning of the movie, meaning he has the freedom to choose what he does and Jasmine has "freedom from," meaning she has the freedom from making choices and gets to live lavishly as a princess in the castle. Aladdin thinks he wants this "freedom from" until the end of the movie when he finds out he is to be the sultan and does not want this responsibility. He ideally wanted to be as rich as a sultan, but does not want the actual job.
Aladdin cracks open a watermelon with his knee in the movie- thats not very realistic. How hard would it be to have him throw it on the ground or something a little more believable?
And like all typical Disney movies, Aladdin makes a deal to get the person he loves and gives up what the romantic interest found to be a redeemable quality in them. Aladdin asks The Genie to make him a typical prince, exactly what Jasmine does not want in a mate- she wants love. This is just like how Ariel gives up her voice in The Little Mermaid when Prince Eric only wanted her for her voice.
This movie reminds me of the story of Purim so I looked it up and similarities between Disney movies and the torah/bible have been drawn. In the story of Purim, Haman, the King's evil advisor, wants to hang Mordechai and Queen Ester steps in and tells the King of his evil plan. Haman manipulates the King just like how Jafar hypnotizes the Sultan with his snake staff.
This link has more information on the comparisons.
About the discussion of race in this movie, it is interesting how there are many references to Western culture in the movie, especially seen in the character of The Genie. The Genie pretends to host game shows and even throws Aladdin the Macy's Day Parade. They even have the reporter with ear muffs from the parade in the movie, equating Aladdin's richness and success with Western themes.
The beginning of the movie is a bit scary as it starts from the villain's point of view, something most Disney movies do not do. I never really hear of Aladdin as any kids favorite Disney movie which is understandable because Jafar is a pretty scary villain. I find it interesting that Aladdin has a narrow face, a pointy chin, and steals: all traits of a villain. I think Aladdin does not look like the typical hero with and wide jawbone because he is poor which makes him a different kind of hero in the eyes of Disney.
Aladdin equates being rich in the beginning of the movie with happiness because he is poor and does not know that money will not change his state of mind. When Jasmine is in her backyard she opens a bird cage and sets all of them free. This is very clear symbolism for her because she feels she is trapped and tries to run away to set herself free. In the movie Aladdin and Jasmine each possess freedom, but they have different kinds of freedom. Aladdin has "freedom to" in the beginning of the movie, meaning he has the freedom to choose what he does and Jasmine has "freedom from," meaning she has the freedom from making choices and gets to live lavishly as a princess in the castle. Aladdin thinks he wants this "freedom from" until the end of the movie when he finds out he is to be the sultan and does not want this responsibility. He ideally wanted to be as rich as a sultan, but does not want the actual job.
Aladdin cracks open a watermelon with his knee in the movie- thats not very realistic. How hard would it be to have him throw it on the ground or something a little more believable?
And like all typical Disney movies, Aladdin makes a deal to get the person he loves and gives up what the romantic interest found to be a redeemable quality in them. Aladdin asks The Genie to make him a typical prince, exactly what Jasmine does not want in a mate- she wants love. This is just like how Ariel gives up her voice in The Little Mermaid when Prince Eric only wanted her for her voice.
This movie reminds me of the story of Purim so I looked it up and similarities between Disney movies and the torah/bible have been drawn. In the story of Purim, Haman, the King's evil advisor, wants to hang Mordechai and Queen Ester steps in and tells the King of his evil plan. Haman manipulates the King just like how Jafar hypnotizes the Sultan with his snake staff.
This link has more information on the comparisons.
About the discussion of race in this movie, it is interesting how there are many references to Western culture in the movie, especially seen in the character of The Genie. The Genie pretends to host game shows and even throws Aladdin the Macy's Day Parade. They even have the reporter with ear muffs from the parade in the movie, equating Aladdin's richness and success with Western themes.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Cigarettes are not Disney Friendly!
So yesterday on my way back to Duke East Campus from the airport, my friend who split an Uber with me asked me how I liked my Writing 101 class, as he needs to choose a topic for his writing class next semester. This was a big mistake on his part because for the rest of the 20 minute ride I lectured him about how Disney is secretive and evil and puts stereotypes out into the world and minds of children. I even had him hold my phone's flashlight up while I whipped out my Disney book, Team Rodent by Carl Hiassen. I went through every chapter summarizing the malicious and secretive ways of Disney, but by the end of the car ride, I still don't think he was too convinced, which is why I was overjoyed to get this text at 8:43 a.m. today:
He saw this post on Reddit and when he understood this Disney being evil theory was more than just a topic at school, but an actual conversation out there in the world, he finally believed me.
The post is a picture of Walt Disney with his two fingers out almost, as if he were holding an invisible cigarette. And invisible it is to us but it wasn't to him! The caption reads: "At Disneyland all photos of Walt Disney have his cigarettes photoshopped out."
The photo shopped picture is on top, and the original (bad quality but the only they could find) is on bottom:
This is a zoomed in picture I took of the original to more clearly see the cigarette:
Now I understand photoshop works both ways and the "original photo" could in fact be the photoshopped one; however, with his awkward hand positioning and after all I now know about Disney secrecy, I believe the Reddit post.
The post is a picture of Walt Disney with his two fingers out almost, as if he were holding an invisible cigarette. And invisible it is to us but it wasn't to him! The caption reads: "At Disneyland all photos of Walt Disney have his cigarettes photoshopped out."
The photo shopped picture is on top, and the original (bad quality but the only they could find) is on bottom:
This is a zoomed in picture I took of the original to more clearly see the cigarette:
Now I understand photoshop works both ways and the "original photo" could in fact be the photoshopped one; however, with his awkward hand positioning and after all I now know about Disney secrecy, I believe the Reddit post.
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Which Disney Princess Are You?
TAKE THE QUIZ HERE!
I got Jasmine. I don't even really remember Aladdin too well- I definitely need a refresher. Now I have another method for procrastinating... good.
I got Jasmine. I don't even really remember Aladdin too well- I definitely need a refresher. Now I have another method for procrastinating... good.
Disney is Buying Twitter...? No Thanks
There has been much speculation on the prospect of Disney acquiring Twitter. Twitter has been on the hunt for a company to buy it because its stock prices are slumping and it is having trouble attracting new users and advertisers. Disney is very interested in Twitter and will probably end up with it, but I will keep hoping this does not happen. The article, "The Happiest Buy on Earth? Disney Interest in Twitter Sparks Speculation", quotes Farhad Manjoo, "'Disney is the happiest place on earth', he says, 'Twitter is for the worst people on the planet.'" This quote really says it all. Twitter is simply not innocent enough for a company like Disney. Twitter is the setting of vulgarness and arguing. Twitter has racism and stereotypes you may have never even heard of. Some people who use Twitter are in fact "the worst people on the planet." Twitter is home to some of the dumbest, meanest, and most ignorant humans who all think what they have to say is very important. Other companies that Disney owns are more controllable, such as Pixar and ESPN. Those companies are very professional and the content is all completely controlled and monitored. Twitter cannot be babysat to the same extent because it is a social media website. There is a professional side to Twitter too; however, celebrities can lash out and act immature at any second. One of the presidential candidates (Donald Trump) even writes provocative tweets- too provocative for the innocent and politically correct Disney company.
Another thing- Disney is taking over the world. Twitter might be full of creeps and politically incorrect humor, but that is the way I like it. When I cannot focus, I scroll through my Twitter feed laughing at people attempting to recreate the currently popular dance move, or using a popular meme to make different variations of the joke. I fear if Disney takes over Twitter, they will clean up the vulgarity and realness of Twitter, the things that make Twitter fun. There was also the point that if Disney controlled Twitter, it might be difficult for other companies to further their own interests through Twitter advertisement. Disney could simply shut out its competitors from using Twitter as a medium for social advancement. Besides that, Disney having jurisdiction over a social media website freaks me out a little. Disney can use propaganda in places where we know and expect it to be, like in commercials or stores, but to further their company through a safe place for people to interact frightens me. The propaganda will be strewn throughout Twitter in a surreptitious and subtle manner so that tweeters will not even know they are being manipulated.
However, Disney buying Twitter does make sense logistically. Twitter is trying to get into more live streaming of things like the NFL and it streamed the presidential debate recently. This is something I can get behind because things like the presidential debate should definitely be streamed through a medium everyone has access too, and a free one at that. As a college student, I do not have a TV and was worried I would not be able to watch, which as a citizen with the right to vote, would be scary if I was completely uninformed because my vote counts just as much as the informed voter. Sports also should be free to watch because it something we all share in the US and around the world that brings us together. Disney owning ESPN would be able to help Twitter in the area of live-streaming. Twitter is hoping adding more rights to live-streaming will increase the stock which is plummeting quickly.
If Disney does buy Twitter and cannot manage to save the company, this will hurt the stocks of both Disney and Twitter. This would be the first successful merge of its kind if the deal works out in favor of both companies. A company owning a social media website seems almost Big Brother-like to me, and after reading many articles and books on Disney for my writing course, that is usually what Disney is going for. I, for one, do not want Disney in control of my life. I love Disney movies as much as the next person, but the entire company being in my face all of the time would be too much to handle. I want to be able to see Disney in the serving size I desire- not forced on me or ruining the things I love (Twitter). The world will be better off if this deal between Disney and Twitter falls through.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Reflection of The Little Mermaid
The Little Mermaid is my favorite Disney movie so watching this was no chore. It is, however, not as easy to critique because it is so good and it is always fun to poke holes. It was interesting watching again after reading the articles for class about evil. Ursula has a manly voice and is fat like Warner stereotypes most villains. When I was watching I also noticed words like "flotsam" and "jetsam" which I did not know their definitions until I studied for the SATs.
It was interesting that Disney created the character of the witch which is half woman half octopus, a legend I have never heard of before; however, everyone has heard of mermaids.
Watching this movie again I also noticed Sebastian is Jamaican. I am curious to know why that is. Are crabs common in Jamaica? Nevertheless, he reminds me of my Jamaican house keeper/ babysitter growing up. Also, I found his name interesting because it would be much better suited on a sea bass.
It was also funny in Ariel's song how she imagines that on land they do not reprimand their daughters. When Ariel saved Eric I got really excited because for once the girl got to save the guy. Go Ariel! Also I fully agree with Sebastian's song, "Under the Sea." I'm sorry but who in their right mind wouldn't want to be a mermaid? It's what I always pretended to be when I went swimming when I was growing up. Me and my friends had a whole mermaid game based on the TV show H20.
It was weird that there were barely any mermen shown in the movie. Obviously Ariel would want a human boy if there were barely any mermen around. Her statue that was given to her of Eric was a bit stalkerish though. Also, she chose a boy she barely knows over her entire family and all of her friends, and her dad still gives his life for her.
Ursula teaches me in this movie that to get a man, its better not to talk. Good thing in this movie she is at least the villain and we know not to trust what she says. Still the theme does not improve much from Cinderella. Eric only loves a girl because of the sound of her voice and was about to marry another girl than Ariel because she could sing well, even though he and Ariel had developed a connection.
I love the sound track for this movie. I could sing these songs all day- in fact I will probably be singing them for the next week. Luckily, my roommate loves them too and will probably sing along with me. I couldn't pick a favorite if I tried but my top three are, in no specific order other than chronological: "Part of Your World," "Under the Sea," and "Kiss the Girl."
It is interesting that in the original story the movie was based on, Ariel was the only one not fascinated by items from ship wrecks. The only thing she did cherish, similarly the movie, was the creepy statue (almost like a shrine).
The original story is also very creepy because the mermaids try to drown lost ships to take their things on board. This closer resembles the story of what actual sirens/mermaids are said to be like in urban legend. Also the witch tells Ariel walking on legs will feel like walking on sharp knives. I think I like the Disney version better...
Reflection on Cinderella (1950)
I had forgotten how much I love this movie so thank you Decoding Disney and Professor Andres for bringing back this childhood memory. I took some notes on my thoughts during the movie and cannot believe all of the stuff I missed when I was a child- it's certainly better watching this now and being able to really understand and appreciate the film.
Okay so when the movie started I couldn't stop picturing the mice and birds as real mice and birds. I would have freaked out if there were that many mice living in my room. I guess that's why i'm not qualified to be a princess. Princesses are kind to all living things. Cinderella even feels bad for Lucifer when he gets hurt- does she have a mean bone in her body?
I also laughed when I saw Bruno running in his sleep because my dog does the same thing- then I got sad because I miss my dog. The relationship between Lucifer and the mice reminded me of the cartoon Tom & Jerry and I'm almost wondering if the tv show was a rip off of Cinderella... Hmmm...
When Cinderella's shoe fell off when she was going up the stairs to bring the sisters their breakfast-that had to be foreshadowing. At first I was thinking because her step mother hates her she doesn't buy her shoes that fit her and she has to use hand-me-downs which would be the reason her shoe falls off at the ball, but then I realized the fairy godmother made her shoes so I don't quite understand why shoes made perfectly for her by magic would fall off twice: once at the ball and again at her wedding. Which happened way too quickly if you ask me but I'm not going to get into that. The whole "they don't even know each other how can they be in love" argument has been done to the max. I am just going to accept it at this point.
On to more important things, like why doesn't Cinderella's mouth move when she is singing to the prince. I wasn't sure if she was singing in her head or out loud until he started singing along too. And that comment that the girl mouse makes when they are making Cinderella's dress, "Leave the sewing to the women." We can't ignore that one. It was 1950 and this line makes this very apparent.
Okay the thing that really irks me is why do the glass slippers not turn back to normal at midnight like everything else? But I did find it funny that Cinderella is where the popular twitter expression came from: "If the shoe fits." I am so out of touch with my Disney roots that I had completely forgotten where the expression originated. If you aren't familiar, i'll explain. When you subtweet on twitter, sometimes people think what your tweeting is about them, so twitter accounts made a joke out of it that "if the shoe fits" they should also be offended by the tweet.
In conclusion, what I learned from this movie is that if your pretty it doesn't matter if your poor. I have tried to come up with a different lesson but I can't find one that sums up the movie better than that.
Okay so when the movie started I couldn't stop picturing the mice and birds as real mice and birds. I would have freaked out if there were that many mice living in my room. I guess that's why i'm not qualified to be a princess. Princesses are kind to all living things. Cinderella even feels bad for Lucifer when he gets hurt- does she have a mean bone in her body?
I also laughed when I saw Bruno running in his sleep because my dog does the same thing- then I got sad because I miss my dog. The relationship between Lucifer and the mice reminded me of the cartoon Tom & Jerry and I'm almost wondering if the tv show was a rip off of Cinderella... Hmmm...
When Cinderella's shoe fell off when she was going up the stairs to bring the sisters their breakfast-that had to be foreshadowing. At first I was thinking because her step mother hates her she doesn't buy her shoes that fit her and she has to use hand-me-downs which would be the reason her shoe falls off at the ball, but then I realized the fairy godmother made her shoes so I don't quite understand why shoes made perfectly for her by magic would fall off twice: once at the ball and again at her wedding. Which happened way too quickly if you ask me but I'm not going to get into that. The whole "they don't even know each other how can they be in love" argument has been done to the max. I am just going to accept it at this point.
On to more important things, like why doesn't Cinderella's mouth move when she is singing to the prince. I wasn't sure if she was singing in her head or out loud until he started singing along too. And that comment that the girl mouse makes when they are making Cinderella's dress, "Leave the sewing to the women." We can't ignore that one. It was 1950 and this line makes this very apparent.
Okay the thing that really irks me is why do the glass slippers not turn back to normal at midnight like everything else? But I did find it funny that Cinderella is where the popular twitter expression came from: "If the shoe fits." I am so out of touch with my Disney roots that I had completely forgotten where the expression originated. If you aren't familiar, i'll explain. When you subtweet on twitter, sometimes people think what your tweeting is about them, so twitter accounts made a joke out of it that "if the shoe fits" they should also be offended by the tweet.
In conclusion, what I learned from this movie is that if your pretty it doesn't matter if your poor. I have tried to come up with a different lesson but I can't find one that sums up the movie better than that.
Friday, September 23, 2016
Creepy Fox on Splash Mountain
The fox on the Splash Mountain ride kept telling this guy he was going to marry his dad... not quite sure if I believe it.
5 Times The Animatronic Fox On Splash Mountain Addressed Me By Name And Told Me He Was Going To Marry My Dad
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Buzz Lightyear Pancake
A weird talent, but cool nonetheless. I wonder how it tastes! This was posted by the Disney Twitter:
Operation: Play with your food is a go! See @drdancake go from batter to Buzz. pic.twitter.com/ekLRWZ6QCY— Disney (@Disney) September 21, 2016
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Response to Team Rodent
Disney is taking over the world. That's it. I am officially convinced. Giroux wasn't as easy to get on board with, but Carl Hiaasen's novel-like and relatable tone in his nonfiction book Team Rodent was difficult to disagree with.
I think his chapter called "Whistle While We Work", the second to last chapter, could have been one his first few chapters. This chapter made me gain whole new level of respect for his strong will in not being corrupted on his trip to Disney World- despite the temptation everywhere. How can you reject a stuffed animal whale? His insistence on paying for everything that he got at Disney, at the correct price, was certainly important for his integrity as a reporter/writer. Sure, he could have just taken the free stuff, not told his company, and claimed he was going to stay unbiased, but who knows if this book would have ever even have been written if that were the case.
Also in this chapter, I was smiling when Nicholas Daniloff walked right past Mickey Mouse. I am still appalled that Disney had the audacity to believe that Mickey Mouse was who Daniloff wanted to be welcomed back into the country by after being seized by the KGB. Okay I am fine with Disney doing its thing and playing up the whole fantasy vibe, but when Disney tries to involve itself in serious matters, I get peeved. It cannot be both. Disney has to know its place and this is just another example of how Disney oversteps its boundaries.
And those poor puppies. How could I go without mentioning the chapter "The Puppy King." This is one of those tricky situations in which the public tries to play the blame game. It happened in this chapter when Hiaasen blames the parents as much as Eisner, and it happened recently in the news when that child was snatched up by an alligator. Even with Harambe getting shot, there was out-roar from the public crucifying the mother of the child who got into the gorilla exhibit. No one can say for certain if Disney was responsible for the euthanizing of a multitude of dalmatians for simply releasing a newer version of a classic Disney movie. Maybe the parents should have done more research on the behavior of the dog. Maybe there should have been a disclaimer at the beginning or end of the movie. Who's to say.
Disney has their own police force and governs itself. How messed up is that? How do we let this be a thing? They are basically their own sovereign nation living within America, like the Vatican is to Italy. Do they even need to follow the rules of the Constitution? This book by Hiaasen has grown contempt for Disney within me. Before I did not hold Disney to any higher standard than other company. I understood that they had to use unfair business practices sometimes, but now I understand why Giroux seemed so volatile. Disney parades around as something that it's not. If it wants to be fake, fantasy world where beaches are always clean and water is always blue, I fully understand that. But Disney tries to incorporate itself into the real world and pretend that the fantasy world is more than a fake place made more children's enjoyment. This belief of Disney's that it is more than just pretend is almost alway the reason for Disney's overstepping boundaries. I wish I could back to times of ignorant bliss when I didn't know about this villainous side of the beloved company, but now that I know I will never be the same and I need everyone else to know what I now know, too.
I think his chapter called "Whistle While We Work", the second to last chapter, could have been one his first few chapters. This chapter made me gain whole new level of respect for his strong will in not being corrupted on his trip to Disney World- despite the temptation everywhere. How can you reject a stuffed animal whale? His insistence on paying for everything that he got at Disney, at the correct price, was certainly important for his integrity as a reporter/writer. Sure, he could have just taken the free stuff, not told his company, and claimed he was going to stay unbiased, but who knows if this book would have ever even have been written if that were the case.
Also in this chapter, I was smiling when Nicholas Daniloff walked right past Mickey Mouse. I am still appalled that Disney had the audacity to believe that Mickey Mouse was who Daniloff wanted to be welcomed back into the country by after being seized by the KGB. Okay I am fine with Disney doing its thing and playing up the whole fantasy vibe, but when Disney tries to involve itself in serious matters, I get peeved. It cannot be both. Disney has to know its place and this is just another example of how Disney oversteps its boundaries.
And those poor puppies. How could I go without mentioning the chapter "The Puppy King." This is one of those tricky situations in which the public tries to play the blame game. It happened in this chapter when Hiaasen blames the parents as much as Eisner, and it happened recently in the news when that child was snatched up by an alligator. Even with Harambe getting shot, there was out-roar from the public crucifying the mother of the child who got into the gorilla exhibit. No one can say for certain if Disney was responsible for the euthanizing of a multitude of dalmatians for simply releasing a newer version of a classic Disney movie. Maybe the parents should have done more research on the behavior of the dog. Maybe there should have been a disclaimer at the beginning or end of the movie. Who's to say.
Disney has their own police force and governs itself. How messed up is that? How do we let this be a thing? They are basically their own sovereign nation living within America, like the Vatican is to Italy. Do they even need to follow the rules of the Constitution? This book by Hiaasen has grown contempt for Disney within me. Before I did not hold Disney to any higher standard than other company. I understood that they had to use unfair business practices sometimes, but now I understand why Giroux seemed so volatile. Disney parades around as something that it's not. If it wants to be fake, fantasy world where beaches are always clean and water is always blue, I fully understand that. But Disney tries to incorporate itself into the real world and pretend that the fantasy world is more than a fake place made more children's enjoyment. This belief of Disney's that it is more than just pretend is almost alway the reason for Disney's overstepping boundaries. I wish I could back to times of ignorant bliss when I didn't know about this villainous side of the beloved company, but now that I know I will never be the same and I need everyone else to know what I now know, too.
Finding Dory Mac n Cheese
When I was shopping in Harris Teeter and saw these!! Too cute- I had to buy some for me and my roommate.
She was appreciative and even mentioned me in her blog:
http://nicoledecodingdisney.blogspot.com/
She was appreciative and even mentioned me in her blog:
http://nicoledecodingdisney.blogspot.com/
Reflection on the Disney's Spying & Secrecy
When I looked up the phrase "Disney spying" on google after reading one article on dirtboxes, a military grade spying device, I assumed the rest of the articles I found would be related to that story in some way. I was mistaken. Almost every article that comes up is a different story about how Disney spies on its fans, whether its at the theme parks or on their websites. I found five separate articles on Disney spying in different ways. The articles discuss phone spying in the parks, wristbands that follow you around in the parks, facial recognition use in the parks, Disney owned websites tracking your internet use, and a device that spies on the use of internet by children to limit their time on certain websites. I won't discuss all of Disney's secretive tactics because that could take up an entire book; however, I will touch upon a few.
Article 1: http://gizmodo.com/disneylands-local-police-force-caught-secretly-using-po-1755671568
The first article I found, titled "Disneyland's Local Police Force Caught Secretly Using Powerful Phone Spying Tools" focused on dirtboxes. A dirtbox is a powerful device that Disneyland's police force was caught using to spy on the phones in Anaheim, and on those in the rest of Orange County. The police would spy from planes that fly over Disneyland and collect data from phones. The article mentions that Disney police did everything they could to keep the spying from the public and went about the use of these tools in a secretive way, just as the FBI and homeland security do. These devices mean that Disney can spy not only on the residents of the OC, but also on every tourist that passes through Disneyland from around the world. A law was passed in California requiring warrants for police to use dirtboxes. The author writes, "The terrifying news is that we need new laws to protect our privacy from the people supposedly protecting us." This quote really stuck with me; however, I do see the other side of it. If the police believe they are spying for the good of the people, they could be actually using that information to protect us. The police were wrong in the way they went about obtaining this information, because they know it is illegal. This just shows another example of Disney being too secretive with the public.
Article 2: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/17/disney_is_spying_on_you/
Disney website about MagicBands: https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/plan/my-disney-experience/bands-cards/
The next article, titled "Disney is Spying on You!" discusses the "MagicBand." This wristband will be able to track your movement around the park. If you go onto the Disney World website, they do not mention the tracking. They talk about customizing the wrist band in fun different colors to make it seem like an accessory you want to wear, instead of a device that they really want you to wear. Instead of forced to wear, it is desired. The MagicBand enables you to unlock your hotel room door, enter water and theme parks, etc. No where does it say that Disney will be tracking your movement at all times. The secrecy has to stop. Disney honestly has such an aura of innocence that chances are, they could get away with half of the things they withhold from the public; however, their surreptitiousness makes their actions seem that much more provocative when their indiscretions come to light.
Article 3: http://www.oregonlive.com/geek/2015/11/disneys_circle_debate_how_far.html
This last article that I will be discussing is titled "Has Disney's Circle Device Taken Spying on your Kids' Online Activity Too Far?" This article compares Disney to a "Big Brother" type figure, or even more fittingly a "Big Parent." There is a new product called the "Circle" that limits your child's internet usage based on preset conditions. For example, if I put in that my daughter can only use Facebook for one hour, the device will track her internet usage and shut off the app when she reaches the time constraint. The author of this article argues that the device is parenting the kid for you. I do not agree with the author's point of view and do not even really see this device as "spying." The device isn't actually spying any more than a parent would be so I really don't see the issue with it. This is just a more effective way to monitor internet usage.
There are many more articles that discuss Disney's spying in a variety of ways. The common theme across them is secrecy. This "spying campaign" that Disney is following will certainly hurt its reputation. Disney is supposed to be the brand name that every family can trust in America, and now even around the world. If we can't trust Disney, its whole appeal is gone. If we don't trust Disney, we won't buy products like the Circle to basically parent our children. Trust is the foundation of the loyalty of its fans and once the trust is gone, we will see many fans go too.
Article 1: http://gizmodo.com/disneylands-local-police-force-caught-secretly-using-po-1755671568
The first article I found, titled "Disneyland's Local Police Force Caught Secretly Using Powerful Phone Spying Tools" focused on dirtboxes. A dirtbox is a powerful device that Disneyland's police force was caught using to spy on the phones in Anaheim, and on those in the rest of Orange County. The police would spy from planes that fly over Disneyland and collect data from phones. The article mentions that Disney police did everything they could to keep the spying from the public and went about the use of these tools in a secretive way, just as the FBI and homeland security do. These devices mean that Disney can spy not only on the residents of the OC, but also on every tourist that passes through Disneyland from around the world. A law was passed in California requiring warrants for police to use dirtboxes. The author writes, "The terrifying news is that we need new laws to protect our privacy from the people supposedly protecting us." This quote really stuck with me; however, I do see the other side of it. If the police believe they are spying for the good of the people, they could be actually using that information to protect us. The police were wrong in the way they went about obtaining this information, because they know it is illegal. This just shows another example of Disney being too secretive with the public.
Article 2: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/17/disney_is_spying_on_you/
Disney website about MagicBands: https://disneyworld.disney.go.com/plan/my-disney-experience/bands-cards/
The next article, titled "Disney is Spying on You!" discusses the "MagicBand." This wristband will be able to track your movement around the park. If you go onto the Disney World website, they do not mention the tracking. They talk about customizing the wrist band in fun different colors to make it seem like an accessory you want to wear, instead of a device that they really want you to wear. Instead of forced to wear, it is desired. The MagicBand enables you to unlock your hotel room door, enter water and theme parks, etc. No where does it say that Disney will be tracking your movement at all times. The secrecy has to stop. Disney honestly has such an aura of innocence that chances are, they could get away with half of the things they withhold from the public; however, their surreptitiousness makes their actions seem that much more provocative when their indiscretions come to light.
Article 3: http://www.oregonlive.com/geek/2015/11/disneys_circle_debate_how_far.html
This last article that I will be discussing is titled "Has Disney's Circle Device Taken Spying on your Kids' Online Activity Too Far?" This article compares Disney to a "Big Brother" type figure, or even more fittingly a "Big Parent." There is a new product called the "Circle" that limits your child's internet usage based on preset conditions. For example, if I put in that my daughter can only use Facebook for one hour, the device will track her internet usage and shut off the app when she reaches the time constraint. The author of this article argues that the device is parenting the kid for you. I do not agree with the author's point of view and do not even really see this device as "spying." The device isn't actually spying any more than a parent would be so I really don't see the issue with it. This is just a more effective way to monitor internet usage.
There are many more articles that discuss Disney's spying in a variety of ways. The common theme across them is secrecy. This "spying campaign" that Disney is following will certainly hurt its reputation. Disney is supposed to be the brand name that every family can trust in America, and now even around the world. If we can't trust Disney, its whole appeal is gone. If we don't trust Disney, we won't buy products like the Circle to basically parent our children. Trust is the foundation of the loyalty of its fans and once the trust is gone, we will see many fans go too.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
Moana Costume Misfire
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this costume. These situations are always tricky because I see both sides. Why wouldn't the costume people try to make the costume look as much like the character as possible? But in this day in age when everyone is very sensitive about race, Disney should have seen this reaction coming. It's hard to believe that costume got past a whole team of PR agents and all the way to the public. Looks like someone is getting fired.
This is the link to the article on this situation:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/disney-does-brownface-in-moana-costume-misfire-1786770402
This is the link to the article on this situation:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/disney-does-brownface-in-moana-costume-misfire-1786770402
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
My Response to Giroux
Henry Giroux's article "Animating Youth: The Disneyfication of Children's Culture" can come off as harsh and a shock to most, especially to those who love Disney. As someone who falls into that category, I was very skeptical at first of this "Giroux" character who has the audacity to call out the creator of everyone's favorite childhood memories. Then I realized, that's the point. That is his point- that Disney has this aura of innocence that surrounds it like a forcefield, protecting it from being put under any scrutiny. Despite Giroux's pessimistic view that Disney is somehow indoctrinating our youth into believing happiness only comes in the version it has created for us, he does raise many valid points and he does deserve respect for being bold enough to openly critique Disney- something no one had ever really done before.
In some instances, Giroux takes Disney's responsibilities too seriously; for example, when he brings up the argument by Wiener that Disneyland "fictionalizes and trivializes" history by not including an accurate portrayal of the lower class by excluding tenements (68). Disneyland is a kids park, and that is what it claims to be. It does not parade as a historical representation of life in America so it is not obligated to show that.
A section of Giroux's article that I enjoy is when he dives into the undertones of Disney films. His examination of men as a source of empowerment for Disney Princesses is certainly a topic that other critics have latched onto. Finally, Giroux starts making some sense and moves away from his repetitive demand for examining the implications and towards actually proving why this "political necessity" exists (70). He examines how Disney misleads the viewer to believe The Little Mermaid will be about a struggle for a young girl's independence, but actually turns out to teach that "desire, choice, and empowerment are closely linked to catching and loving handsome men" (71). This observation of the misleading message is often overlooked and was a good catch by Giroux.
He also does a good job of tying Beauty and the Beast into this theme of women only being useful as a prize for men. Giroux writes, "In the end, Belle simply becomes another woman whose life is valued for solving a man's problem" (71). Again, we see Disney superficially teaching the lesson to reject hyper-masculinity, but really the theme of women as useful only in regards to men peaks through.
I appreciate Giroux's analysis of women in Disney films and I agree that I have certainly been influenced by these anti-feminist themes; however, Giroux underestimates the power of other influences. I haven't grown up wishing to be a housewife- I understand that my value as a woman extends farther than any man. Giroux might say that this is because I am not a child anymore; however, I am a child that has grown up. Children outgrow silly beliefs they had when they were young. Who's to say that believing in the objectification of women when I was young is any different than believing in the Tooth Fairy. I outgrew both beliefs so why is one more provocative than the other? Giroux's demand for examination of Disney is excessive, but as a suggestion, it isn't such a bad idea.
In some instances, Giroux takes Disney's responsibilities too seriously; for example, when he brings up the argument by Wiener that Disneyland "fictionalizes and trivializes" history by not including an accurate portrayal of the lower class by excluding tenements (68). Disneyland is a kids park, and that is what it claims to be. It does not parade as a historical representation of life in America so it is not obligated to show that.
A section of Giroux's article that I enjoy is when he dives into the undertones of Disney films. His examination of men as a source of empowerment for Disney Princesses is certainly a topic that other critics have latched onto. Finally, Giroux starts making some sense and moves away from his repetitive demand for examining the implications and towards actually proving why this "political necessity" exists (70). He examines how Disney misleads the viewer to believe The Little Mermaid will be about a struggle for a young girl's independence, but actually turns out to teach that "desire, choice, and empowerment are closely linked to catching and loving handsome men" (71). This observation of the misleading message is often overlooked and was a good catch by Giroux.
He also does a good job of tying Beauty and the Beast into this theme of women only being useful as a prize for men. Giroux writes, "In the end, Belle simply becomes another woman whose life is valued for solving a man's problem" (71). Again, we see Disney superficially teaching the lesson to reject hyper-masculinity, but really the theme of women as useful only in regards to men peaks through.
I appreciate Giroux's analysis of women in Disney films and I agree that I have certainly been influenced by these anti-feminist themes; however, Giroux underestimates the power of other influences. I haven't grown up wishing to be a housewife- I understand that my value as a woman extends farther than any man. Giroux might say that this is because I am not a child anymore; however, I am a child that has grown up. Children outgrow silly beliefs they had when they were young. Who's to say that believing in the objectification of women when I was young is any different than believing in the Tooth Fairy. I outgrew both beliefs so why is one more provocative than the other? Giroux's demand for examination of Disney is excessive, but as a suggestion, it isn't such a bad idea.
Minnie & Mickey: Real Life Lovers
My friend sent me a snapchat news story that the voices of Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse are married in real life... I had to investigate. That's when I found this cute article:
12 Mickey and Minnie Mouse Facts That Will Make You Believe in Love Forever
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
How has Disney shaped me?
Every little kid loves being sick. They get to stay home from school and watch cartoons all day. Disney Channel was part of my sick day tradition with my mom who would let me sit in her bed and watch cartoons like Winnie the Pooh all day. She didn't even mind the occasional puking on her bed, or worry about getting sick herself.
I've always loved Disney movies and tv shows for their simplicity. The theme is always straight-forward and easy enough for a kid to understand, while the end always leaves the viewer with a cozy and heartwarming feeling- at least thats how I watched them as a child. When you're a kid you aren't looking for a meaning you just want to watch the heartwarming story with the cute animals, but subconsciously Disney is engraining values in those little kids. Movies are similar to religions in that both provide a code of ethics to live by. They both teach kids the difference between right and wrong and give people role models to look up to; for example, Jesus Christ or Mulan.
Watching Disney movies now, we are able to clearly see the main idea of the movie and we can choose to reject this theme by removing it from the warm and fuzzy storyline and adorable and funny characters and evaluating it for its intrinsic message. The Disney princesses have always been a controversial topic of discussion because their male love interests are usually attracted to them by appearance. The Disney princesses have had an impact on me, as I'm sure they have on many other little girls. They made me dream of my own fairytale in which a prince comes and saves the day; however, Disney has now moved away from this theme, trying to create strong heroine, such as in the movie Brave, to teach young girls to be their own saviors.
When I went to see The Jungle Book with my friends, one of them insisted that Mowgli was the villain and Shere Khan was the hero. He took away a different main idea than the one that Disney was trying to teach- not to judge (in this case by species). He came away with the message that humans do not belong in nature. He argued in defense of Shere Khan that the little boy caused the destruction of the forest and should never have been there in the first place. If we were little kids watching this movie, the farthest our conversation would go is to which character was the funniest. As young adults we are able to view Disney movies with the same analytical skills we could for a novel.
When I went to see The Jungle Book with my friends, one of them insisted that Mowgli was the villain and Shere Khan was the hero. He took away a different main idea than the one that Disney was trying to teach- not to judge (in this case by species). He came away with the message that humans do not belong in nature. He argued in defense of Shere Khan that the little boy caused the destruction of the forest and should never have been there in the first place. If we were little kids watching this movie, the farthest our conversation would go is to which character was the funniest. As young adults we are able to view Disney movies with the same analytical skills we could for a novel.
Disney has shaped me in other ways than just through the movies and shows themselves. Disney World is the place to go for families. Although I don't remember my two different trips I can still enjoy the cute pictures of my family with the characters. Disney brings families together and seeing the many movies in which one parent is killed off, such as Cinderella, made me much more appreciative of what I had.
Here is my family during my second trip to Disney World with Tigger. I look pretty old in this picture(I'm in the pink)- you would think I would remember this trip but sadly I have a terrible memory.
Here are my dad and I on a ride during my first trip to Disney world- I am clearly too young to remember this one.
This picture shows my mom, my older sister, and me on a dumbo ride in Disney World.
Even though I don't remember taking these pictures, or the trips at all for the most part, I still smile looking through these pictures and feel that warmth that I don't know if I would feel if Disney had never been part of my childhood. I might have felt a hole in my life if Walt Disney had never brought me all of the memories that have shaped who I am now.
Sunday, September 4, 2016
Introduction- Why Decoding Disney?
Welcome to my Disney blog! I am very excited to be in this Writing 101 class-probably more so than other students-but not for the reasons you would expect. I was in the second pool for registration, so you're probably wondering how I even got into this class. When I was looking through the Writing 101 topic selections page, I had almost every single class starred. There were so many interesting topics and it hadn't occurred to me that all of them could possibly be taken by the time I was able to enroll in classes. Sure enough, when I logged into (what was then called) ACES, there were only three options left!
I knew I never had a shot of getting into Decoding Disney so it came as no surprise to me when that disappeared, but to only have three topics left was appalling. However, I wasn't too worried because one of the topics happened to be one of the many I had starred. I still had hope so I chose Literature in the Age of Mass Reproduction as quickly as possible and headed to the enroll page. That is where I ran into trouble- I couldn't find the enroll button! I frantically searched for the next 15 minutes until I finally figured out how to navigate the convoluted website, and by that time the course was full.
The only two topics that remained were Women's Memoirs and Memory and Trauma in Latin American Cinema. I believe these are the only two Writing 101 courses that are still not filled. I reluctantly chose Women's Memoirs (no offense intended, this course simply did not catch my interest) and emailed my academic advisor hoping to find a way to change my fate. He instructed me to keep checking ACES to see if a spot opened up in another class. I looked every day and to no avail. The registration window closed and I knew I was stuck until registration opened back up in late August.
Finally the window reopened and I checked every day hoping a class would open up. I would quickly skim through the different themes looking for an "open" written underneath the class. I couldn't believe my luck when I saw Decoding Disney had one spot left. Confusion overcame me. Who would drop Decoding Disney? I suddenly felt extremely anxious as I frantically dropped my writing and economy classes to make room for Decoding Disney. I felt a wave of relief when the little green check popped up enrolling me in the Writing 101 class almost every freshman desired. Although the timing of the class was a bit early for my erratic sleeping schedule, I was, and still am, determined to compromise my Monday and Wednesday mornings for the most interesting Writing 101 class Duke has to offer.
While I haven't either seen or remember seeing all of the Disney classic movies, and I cannot recall my trip to Disney world, I certainly know I watched Disney Channel 24/7 until an embarrassing age. I love pixar movies like Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc., The Incredibles, WALL-E, and Inside out, as well as Disney Channel movies. My favorite is High School Musical and I know the entire soundtrack to all three movies. My favorite Pixar movie is the Incredibles because it is my mom's favorite movie of all time and I always loved comparing the super family to my own family of five, deciding which character best suited each of us. I constantly complain to my parents that I have such a big age difference between me and my siblings because I don't remember all of the fun family adventure we went on when I was a baby, such as Disney world. Even so, I am still forever appreciative of Walt Disney for creating the company that shaped my childhood.
Beyond having an utmost reverence for Walt Disney, I took this course because of my passion for analysis. I was first intrigued by name of the course and to in fact "decode" the intentions of Disney movie creators. Seeing how the movies actually impact the world is definitely a topic I am ready to dive into and explore. I hope to make connections between why Disney portrays certain villains the way it does- based on gender or other societal factors. The question of if Disney is a villain itself catches my interest. I had only thought about how Disney creates heroes and role models. I had never considered the fact that they also created the evil that frightened us as children and gave us nightmares.
I knew I never had a shot of getting into Decoding Disney so it came as no surprise to me when that disappeared, but to only have three topics left was appalling. However, I wasn't too worried because one of the topics happened to be one of the many I had starred. I still had hope so I chose Literature in the Age of Mass Reproduction as quickly as possible and headed to the enroll page. That is where I ran into trouble- I couldn't find the enroll button! I frantically searched for the next 15 minutes until I finally figured out how to navigate the convoluted website, and by that time the course was full.
The only two topics that remained were Women's Memoirs and Memory and Trauma in Latin American Cinema. I believe these are the only two Writing 101 courses that are still not filled. I reluctantly chose Women's Memoirs (no offense intended, this course simply did not catch my interest) and emailed my academic advisor hoping to find a way to change my fate. He instructed me to keep checking ACES to see if a spot opened up in another class. I looked every day and to no avail. The registration window closed and I knew I was stuck until registration opened back up in late August.
Finally the window reopened and I checked every day hoping a class would open up. I would quickly skim through the different themes looking for an "open" written underneath the class. I couldn't believe my luck when I saw Decoding Disney had one spot left. Confusion overcame me. Who would drop Decoding Disney? I suddenly felt extremely anxious as I frantically dropped my writing and economy classes to make room for Decoding Disney. I felt a wave of relief when the little green check popped up enrolling me in the Writing 101 class almost every freshman desired. Although the timing of the class was a bit early for my erratic sleeping schedule, I was, and still am, determined to compromise my Monday and Wednesday mornings for the most interesting Writing 101 class Duke has to offer.
While I haven't either seen or remember seeing all of the Disney classic movies, and I cannot recall my trip to Disney world, I certainly know I watched Disney Channel 24/7 until an embarrassing age. I love pixar movies like Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc., The Incredibles, WALL-E, and Inside out, as well as Disney Channel movies. My favorite is High School Musical and I know the entire soundtrack to all three movies. My favorite Pixar movie is the Incredibles because it is my mom's favorite movie of all time and I always loved comparing the super family to my own family of five, deciding which character best suited each of us. I constantly complain to my parents that I have such a big age difference between me and my siblings because I don't remember all of the fun family adventure we went on when I was a baby, such as Disney world. Even so, I am still forever appreciative of Walt Disney for creating the company that shaped my childhood.
Beyond having an utmost reverence for Walt Disney, I took this course because of my passion for analysis. I was first intrigued by name of the course and to in fact "decode" the intentions of Disney movie creators. Seeing how the movies actually impact the world is definitely a topic I am ready to dive into and explore. I hope to make connections between why Disney portrays certain villains the way it does- based on gender or other societal factors. The question of if Disney is a villain itself catches my interest. I had only thought about how Disney creates heroes and role models. I had never considered the fact that they also created the evil that frightened us as children and gave us nightmares.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)