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
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)