Rachael Eyre's Blog - Posts Tagged "disney"
Inspiration Corner: Disney
Like many kids of the Nineties I have a deep, abiding love of Disney films. Their animated films are among the first children see, shaping their expectations of what a "movie" should be like. The finest Disney is a heady brew: adventure, romance, gobsmacking animation, a villain you can loathe and sidekicks you chuckle over. I was fortunate to grow up during the 'Disney renaissance', where the company produced a clutch of outstanding pictures that are still revered today: The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. Whether The Hunchback of Notre Dame belongs to this list is a matter of dispute; it's generally agreed that Pocahontas, Hercules and Tarzan do not. (I adore Hercules despite considerable flaws).
Although nobody has drawn up the winning formula, most successful Disney films have the following ingredients in common. They're based on a story already in the public domain. (The notable exception is The Lion King, which may or may not have been ripped off from Kimba the White Lion). They have a young protagonist, often female, who feels "different" and has an indefinable sense he / she is better than their lot. (Yet many of them are royalty. Go figure). They embark on an odyssey of self discovery, befriending wacky supporting characters along the way, and incidentally piss off powerful gods / sorcerors / tools with testosterone poisoning. Despite their aspirations they usually fall for the first beef/cheesecake they meet and get married - bye, bye adventures! In the best of the old movies the process was aided by spectacular musical numbers.
Considering Disney is the first fictional universe many of us encounter, its teachings are dubious at best. Quite aside from the message that "happily ever after means heterosexuality with 2.4 kids", it actively rewards unethical behaviour. Whole storylines revolve around the lead winning another character's love - Aladdin wants Jasmine, Ariel Eric - but the fact remains they do this via magic and deception, making them little better than the villain plotting their downfall. The Beast is a special case - it seems ignorance is one of the conditions of the spell, but since Belle is smart enough to realise most castles don't have singing and dancing furniture, chances are she guessed that part too. Either way, it isn't the same as tricking someone into believing you're a completely different person.
If "lie to win her heart" isn't iffy enough, what are we to make of the equation of goodness with beauty and evil with ugliness? Our youthful hero / ine is always a good looking all American kid, regardless of setting, while the baddies tend to be older, haggard and frequently uncomfortably ethnic. Why is Jafar the only convincingly Arabic character in Aladdin (with, may I point out, one of the only authentic Arabic names)? Why is Ursula morbidly obese? Even Gaston, object of many a girlhood crush, grows progressively uglier as the film goes on. When he finally stabs the Beast his face is twisted by a deranged slasher smile, not remotely handsome. The animators may claim his "true nature is revealed", or other such guff, but what are we to make of the Queen's transformation in Snow White, when she inexplicably turns into Jimmy Savile? Her stepdaughter's dimmer than a box of spent matches - all she had to do was put on a wig or disguise her voice. For whatever murky reasons, the company couldn't show an attractive character committing murder. You can't even cite the Beast as a subversion; his reward for reforming and earning Belle's love is being made - well, less bestial?
Perhaps I'm being unfair. The stories are mainly drawn from fairy tales, which aren't exactly bastions of logic. Cinderella's prince falls instantly in love, yet doesn't recognise the ragged urchin as his dream girl until she tries on that measly slipper. Prince Philip (heh) knows Aurora's bewitched and a kiss will release her, but what about Snow White's prince? Does he habitually wander around snogging dead girls? And why the hell doesn't Ariel find a pen and paper and explain her predicament to Eric?
The scenario that really sticks in my craw is the Beast's enchantment. We don't know why he was cursed in the original, but in the film he's only a child when the malicious bitch, sorry, beautiful enchantress transforms him - for not letting a creepy old hag into his castle. If we believe all Disney characters are contemporaries, perhaps he had the cautionary tale of Snow White drummed into him. In the event, he was absolutely right not to trust her.
Indeed, why are the women in these films so goddamn petty? Only Ursula is given a valid motive: revenge on Triton for banishing her (for reasons unspecified) and to rule the ocean (go, girl!) The rest seem to be driven by vanity and / or dislike: the wicked Queen can't stand that Snow White is prettier than her (debatable); Cruella wants a fabulous winter wardrobe; Lady Tremaine gets her kicks from bullying her stepdaughter. The prize definitely goes to Maleficent, who, after not being invited to a CHRISTENING, hexes a blameless girl and the entire kingdom. Overreaction much? I'd hate to forget her birthday.
More scholarly minds than mine have noted these issues and wondered if they might actually be harmful. Some feminists believe Beauty and the Beast perpetuates the myth that an abuser can be redeemed; psychologists have pointed out that the romance arc is easily attributable to Stockholm Syndrome. The racism of the older films is painful to modern sensibilities. Although the most objectionable sequences have been excised, we still have the torture happy, lisping Siamese cats in Lady and the Tramp and the jaw droppingly offensive Why Is the Red Man Red in Peter Pan. Even class doesn't get an easy ride. While a hard done by heroine might dream of a better life, and achieve it through marriage (!), hardworking and ambitious Disney males have a tendency to be evil, e.g. Jafar, Edgar in The Aristocats, Hades to some extent. Their "superiors" are usually numbskulls, making their frustration perfectly understandable.
You can tell that the company is taking the years of negative feedback on board. We're seeing varied, proactive heroines, who have more to offer than looks and viable ovaries. Frozen was a magnificent subversion of Disney's traditional values: two well rounded, interesting heroines, the "charming prince" being a sociopath and the two girls rescuing each other. Enchanted was a glittering live action send up of the most annoying tropes: falling in love in a heartbeat, housework with rodents (ugh!) and the complex physics of kiss magic. It's both hilarious and heartwarming.
You might ask why, having all these nitpicks, I continue to watch Disney films. It's precisely because I love them that I find myself pitying the hyenas or wondering what on earth will happen on Ariel and Eric's wedding night. I'm itching to write the "ever after" for a whole host of fairy tale characters - none of which would be possible if I hadn't been introduced to them by Disney.
Although nobody has drawn up the winning formula, most successful Disney films have the following ingredients in common. They're based on a story already in the public domain. (The notable exception is The Lion King, which may or may not have been ripped off from Kimba the White Lion). They have a young protagonist, often female, who feels "different" and has an indefinable sense he / she is better than their lot. (Yet many of them are royalty. Go figure). They embark on an odyssey of self discovery, befriending wacky supporting characters along the way, and incidentally piss off powerful gods / sorcerors / tools with testosterone poisoning. Despite their aspirations they usually fall for the first beef/cheesecake they meet and get married - bye, bye adventures! In the best of the old movies the process was aided by spectacular musical numbers.
Considering Disney is the first fictional universe many of us encounter, its teachings are dubious at best. Quite aside from the message that "happily ever after means heterosexuality with 2.4 kids", it actively rewards unethical behaviour. Whole storylines revolve around the lead winning another character's love - Aladdin wants Jasmine, Ariel Eric - but the fact remains they do this via magic and deception, making them little better than the villain plotting their downfall. The Beast is a special case - it seems ignorance is one of the conditions of the spell, but since Belle is smart enough to realise most castles don't have singing and dancing furniture, chances are she guessed that part too. Either way, it isn't the same as tricking someone into believing you're a completely different person.
If "lie to win her heart" isn't iffy enough, what are we to make of the equation of goodness with beauty and evil with ugliness? Our youthful hero / ine is always a good looking all American kid, regardless of setting, while the baddies tend to be older, haggard and frequently uncomfortably ethnic. Why is Jafar the only convincingly Arabic character in Aladdin (with, may I point out, one of the only authentic Arabic names)? Why is Ursula morbidly obese? Even Gaston, object of many a girlhood crush, grows progressively uglier as the film goes on. When he finally stabs the Beast his face is twisted by a deranged slasher smile, not remotely handsome. The animators may claim his "true nature is revealed", or other such guff, but what are we to make of the Queen's transformation in Snow White, when she inexplicably turns into Jimmy Savile? Her stepdaughter's dimmer than a box of spent matches - all she had to do was put on a wig or disguise her voice. For whatever murky reasons, the company couldn't show an attractive character committing murder. You can't even cite the Beast as a subversion; his reward for reforming and earning Belle's love is being made - well, less bestial?
Perhaps I'm being unfair. The stories are mainly drawn from fairy tales, which aren't exactly bastions of logic. Cinderella's prince falls instantly in love, yet doesn't recognise the ragged urchin as his dream girl until she tries on that measly slipper. Prince Philip (heh) knows Aurora's bewitched and a kiss will release her, but what about Snow White's prince? Does he habitually wander around snogging dead girls? And why the hell doesn't Ariel find a pen and paper and explain her predicament to Eric?
The scenario that really sticks in my craw is the Beast's enchantment. We don't know why he was cursed in the original, but in the film he's only a child when the malicious bitch, sorry, beautiful enchantress transforms him - for not letting a creepy old hag into his castle. If we believe all Disney characters are contemporaries, perhaps he had the cautionary tale of Snow White drummed into him. In the event, he was absolutely right not to trust her.
Indeed, why are the women in these films so goddamn petty? Only Ursula is given a valid motive: revenge on Triton for banishing her (for reasons unspecified) and to rule the ocean (go, girl!) The rest seem to be driven by vanity and / or dislike: the wicked Queen can't stand that Snow White is prettier than her (debatable); Cruella wants a fabulous winter wardrobe; Lady Tremaine gets her kicks from bullying her stepdaughter. The prize definitely goes to Maleficent, who, after not being invited to a CHRISTENING, hexes a blameless girl and the entire kingdom. Overreaction much? I'd hate to forget her birthday.
More scholarly minds than mine have noted these issues and wondered if they might actually be harmful. Some feminists believe Beauty and the Beast perpetuates the myth that an abuser can be redeemed; psychologists have pointed out that the romance arc is easily attributable to Stockholm Syndrome. The racism of the older films is painful to modern sensibilities. Although the most objectionable sequences have been excised, we still have the torture happy, lisping Siamese cats in Lady and the Tramp and the jaw droppingly offensive Why Is the Red Man Red in Peter Pan. Even class doesn't get an easy ride. While a hard done by heroine might dream of a better life, and achieve it through marriage (!), hardworking and ambitious Disney males have a tendency to be evil, e.g. Jafar, Edgar in The Aristocats, Hades to some extent. Their "superiors" are usually numbskulls, making their frustration perfectly understandable.
You can tell that the company is taking the years of negative feedback on board. We're seeing varied, proactive heroines, who have more to offer than looks and viable ovaries. Frozen was a magnificent subversion of Disney's traditional values: two well rounded, interesting heroines, the "charming prince" being a sociopath and the two girls rescuing each other. Enchanted was a glittering live action send up of the most annoying tropes: falling in love in a heartbeat, housework with rodents (ugh!) and the complex physics of kiss magic. It's both hilarious and heartwarming.
You might ask why, having all these nitpicks, I continue to watch Disney films. It's precisely because I love them that I find myself pitying the hyenas or wondering what on earth will happen on Ariel and Eric's wedding night. I'm itching to write the "ever after" for a whole host of fairy tale characters - none of which would be possible if I hadn't been introduced to them by Disney.
