For as controversial a film as The Princess and the Frog is, as it is Disney's first film with an African American princess, it makes sense that much of the response has been negative. Among these is Richard Breaux who examines the topics of race and gender in his essay "After 75 Years of Magic: Disney Answers Its Critics, Rewrites African American History, and Cashes In on Its Racist Past." Given the title, it isn't hard to see that Breaux comes down quite hard on the Disney Company. According to him, while the film does represent Disney's attempt to be more progressive, by being less racist and having more positive role models, it is done through Disney's selfish motives that is coupled with a lack of refinement. He states that Disney fails to acknowledge its racist past in the film, thereby presenting itself as a politically correct company.
The organization structure employed by Breaux makes for a strong, logical argument. He introduces his thesis early on and quickly mentions his road map for the essay with three distinct sections to the paper: (1) Disney's attempt to address complaints about its lack of diversity in previous films; (2) representations of animated black women in film; and (3) Disney's profit-driven attempt to ignore its racist past in The Princess and the Frog. Each section includes an easily apparent subheading followed by strong mini-theses. This attention to detail likely represents the highlight of the paper.
Even with the good organization and logical argument, Breaux nevertheless had me scratching my head and some points in his paper. Mainly his rambling and getting off topic proved especially problematic. He goes into a deep historical explanation of the NAACP's reaction to A birth of a Nation, for example, has an oddly deep analysis of the bottles in Mama Odie's house, and, most strangely, shows great enthusiasm in comparing the film to Our Friend, Martin, which has no apparent relevancy at all.
The essay definitely had its good qualities, but was ultimately marred by a lack of focus.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Sarah Turner Response
As The Princess and the Frog represents Disney's first movie that has a black princess, there has obviously been much debate surrounding the film. Some believe Tiana, the princess, isn't black enough while others believe the movie is too black. This argument has gained much academic attention, including by Sarah Turner who in her essay "Blackness, Bayous, and Gumbo: Encoding and Decoding Race in a Colorblind World" examines the role of race in the film.
For Turner, it becomes apparent that she believes Disney considers The Princess and the Frog a truly colorblind film. She cites a number of instances in Disney being especially careful in regards to race. For example, it hired correspondences to watch and critique the film (which actually ended up in the naming of the princess's name from Maddie to Tiana), included prominent African Americans in the film (such as Oprah Winfrey), and had a relative lack of race in the actual plot line. While Turner considers this "coding" of the movie to be inconspicuous enough, the decoding by the audience poses another side of the argument, which she asserts is not as overwhelmingly colorblind and positive.
Turner cites a number of instances in the film where race could and has been considered to be a prominent factor by the audience. These include the antithesis of Charlotte, the typical white princess characteristic of most Disney films, with Tiana, Tiana's job as a waiter in a generally black restaurant, the ambiguous ethnicity of Naveen, and the idea of if being frogs marginalizing "blackness." All these assertions definitely express the concerns many people have shown towards the film.
Nevertheless, although she never explicitly states it, Turner seems to believe in Disney's intentions of creating a colorblind, inspirational story, even if their ultimate goal is to make as big a profit as possible. Through an overall logical argument, inclusion of relevant evidence, and the usage of outside opinions and perspective, this assertion becomes especially strong for Turner.
For Turner, it becomes apparent that she believes Disney considers The Princess and the Frog a truly colorblind film. She cites a number of instances in Disney being especially careful in regards to race. For example, it hired correspondences to watch and critique the film (which actually ended up in the naming of the princess's name from Maddie to Tiana), included prominent African Americans in the film (such as Oprah Winfrey), and had a relative lack of race in the actual plot line. While Turner considers this "coding" of the movie to be inconspicuous enough, the decoding by the audience poses another side of the argument, which she asserts is not as overwhelmingly colorblind and positive.
Turner cites a number of instances in the film where race could and has been considered to be a prominent factor by the audience. These include the antithesis of Charlotte, the typical white princess characteristic of most Disney films, with Tiana, Tiana's job as a waiter in a generally black restaurant, the ambiguous ethnicity of Naveen, and the idea of if being frogs marginalizing "blackness." All these assertions definitely express the concerns many people have shown towards the film.
Nevertheless, although she never explicitly states it, Turner seems to believe in Disney's intentions of creating a colorblind, inspirational story, even if their ultimate goal is to make as big a profit as possible. Through an overall logical argument, inclusion of relevant evidence, and the usage of outside opinions and perspective, this assertion becomes especially strong for Turner.
Live-Action Mulan
I read an article online that confirmed Disney will be making a live-action version of the 1998 hit Mulan. Although there has not been a decided-upon release date or any casting announcements, the script Disney ordered for the film has Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. star Ming-Na Wen voicing the titular role. This live-action film has become a common trend for Disney who is currently enjoying the success of its remade Cinderella which has grossed nearly $350 million world-wide since its release last month. Additionally, Disney also has a live-action Beauty and the Beast in the makings which will feature Emma Watson and will debut in 2017, while another Alice in Wonderland is set for 2016. A new The Jungle Book is also set to come out in 2016, and a live-action Dumbo directed by Tim Burton is said to be being made right now.
The Princess and the Frog
Although The Princess and the Frog came out in 2009, this past week was the first time I had seen the film. Known Disney's introduction into having a black princess, the movie was immediately shrouded in controversy. Some thought the princess, Tiana, wasn't black enough while others though she was too black. Since its release nearly six years ago, more debate has surged with reviews, articles, and even entire books questioning the role race plays in the movie.
Obviously this aspect of race is vital to the discussion of The Princess and the Frog, however putting this issue aside, the movie just felt different than all the other Disney movies I've watched before. Maybe its because this was my first time seeing it, eliminating the possibility of having any nostalgia for film, or maybe it was the movie itself, but everything seemed flat and predictable. Don't get me wrong; I'm no idiot - all Disney movies are predictable for the most part - but it seemed like I could've written the script after everything was introduced in the first five minutes. Although hard-working and positive, Tiana, although the most charismatic character, still was a relatively static character. And even though Navine has a minor epiphany, he still is boring.
This isn't to say the movie was all bad. I really did appreciate Disney's attempt at giving the movie an actual setting, 1930s New Orleans, which is something that isn't characteristic of most of its films. I found that playing off this provided some of the most intriguing parts of the film. Although some people consider some of these parts to add to the race controversy, I thought it added a more genuine sense to the movie, such as the inclusion of Raymond, Louis, and Mama Odie.
All in all, The Princess and the Frog was good, but definitely not great.
Obviously this aspect of race is vital to the discussion of The Princess and the Frog, however putting this issue aside, the movie just felt different than all the other Disney movies I've watched before. Maybe its because this was my first time seeing it, eliminating the possibility of having any nostalgia for film, or maybe it was the movie itself, but everything seemed flat and predictable. Don't get me wrong; I'm no idiot - all Disney movies are predictable for the most part - but it seemed like I could've written the script after everything was introduced in the first five minutes. Although hard-working and positive, Tiana, although the most charismatic character, still was a relatively static character. And even though Navine has a minor epiphany, he still is boring.
This isn't to say the movie was all bad. I really did appreciate Disney's attempt at giving the movie an actual setting, 1930s New Orleans, which is something that isn't characteristic of most of its films. I found that playing off this provided some of the most intriguing parts of the film. Although some people consider some of these parts to add to the race controversy, I thought it added a more genuine sense to the movie, such as the inclusion of Raymond, Louis, and Mama Odie.
All in all, The Princess and the Frog was good, but definitely not great.
Disney Endings
I know we've read a couple of the original stories some Disney movies were based on and discussed how dark some of them were. I came across this on the Internet the past week and thought it was appropriate.
Colorscripts
While I was doing research for my final essay, I came across this really cool book called “The Art of Pixar: The Complete Colorscripts and Select Art from 25 Years of Animation” by Amid Amidi. The book contains no commentary, it simply presents the colorscripts (drawings that set the color, lighting, emotion, and overall design of a movie) of all 12 Pixar films. It was interesting to see how the art styles in each of the movies differed. The Incredibles, my movie for the essays, was especially different, with sharp, blocky images that resembled a comic book. I'll put an image of the colorscripts below but I'd definitely recommend picking up the book at the library and taking a look for yourself.
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Disney Success
I saw this article linked to some advertisement on Facebook during the week. It seemed quite applicable to our discussion of Disney's success and gives some insight towards just how successful the company has been and a few reasons why it's been on top for so long. Also, as someone interested in the business side of things, I enjoyed how this provides a cool economic perspective.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/28/3-reasons-why-the-walt-disney-company-is-brilliant.aspx
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/28/3-reasons-why-the-walt-disney-company-is-brilliant.aspx
The Rock Meets Disney
Not only did the Rock kill it on SNL this past weekend but he also starred in a funny trailer for a new Disney movie. Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJz2IMUeDE&feature=youtu.be
Dennis Tyler Response
Dennis Tyler's "Home Is Where The Heart Is" touches on a number of subjects about Pixar's critically acclaimed Up, such the film's success, the animation of the characters, and important themes of gender, race, and body image. Given this wide range of topics that spanned just over 10 pages, there were obviously some hits but more generally there were areas that didn't work in the essay.
I found that the most effective part of the essay was generally the discussion on the workings of the animation. From on outside perspective, this is something that very rarely gets as discussed as other things, such as the themes and messages associated with a movie, but something that can be just as important. Plus it's just really cool. Tyler did a good of touching on the cuteness aspect that Pixar created through soft, round characters.
However, at the end of the day, Tyler promised to discuss the idea of home in Up and this was ultimately a failure. For one, very little of the piece had to do with this idea. The majority dealt with how Tyler believed Carl's marginalization of Ellie and her desires advocated for a patriarchy or how he felt that the inclusion of black characters in meaningless roles advocated for Disney's conservative, white views. Not only did these things not follow the thesis of the paper, but they were just flat out wrong. Additionally, the conclusion was about as ineffective as a conclusion can be.
By alienating the audience through making these bold, evidence-less claims and by not delivering on what he promised, Tyler's article did not prove very successful.
I found that the most effective part of the essay was generally the discussion on the workings of the animation. From on outside perspective, this is something that very rarely gets as discussed as other things, such as the themes and messages associated with a movie, but something that can be just as important. Plus it's just really cool. Tyler did a good of touching on the cuteness aspect that Pixar created through soft, round characters.
However, at the end of the day, Tyler promised to discuss the idea of home in Up and this was ultimately a failure. For one, very little of the piece had to do with this idea. The majority dealt with how Tyler believed Carl's marginalization of Ellie and her desires advocated for a patriarchy or how he felt that the inclusion of black characters in meaningless roles advocated for Disney's conservative, white views. Not only did these things not follow the thesis of the paper, but they were just flat out wrong. Additionally, the conclusion was about as ineffective as a conclusion can be.
By alienating the audience through making these bold, evidence-less claims and by not delivering on what he promised, Tyler's article did not prove very successful.
Kate Flynn Response
At first glance, I wouldn't think there would be much of a relationship between the land and the perceptions about weight that are present in a movie. After reading Kate Flynn's piece "Fat and the Land: Size Stereotyping in Pixar's Up," this sentiment is unfortunately still true. Due to a lack of logical reasoning and connecting points with good evidence by Flynn, her argument of linking the two simply did not make sense. For lack of a better word, it was, well, weird.
This isn't to say that Flynn's article didn't have some redeeming qualities. The references to Wall-E, for example, were apropos, as Wall-E quite obviously provides a commentary on over-consumption and weight. However, just because one Disney movie has this theme doesn't mean that another must, and I found myself not fully seeing Flynn's connection between the two. This was one flaw in her argument.
Additionally, I found myself disagreeing with Flynn on a number of points. For one, she often draws attention to Russell's ironic lack of competence in the wilderness (after all, he is a Wilderness Explorer) and blames it on his portly body type. By doing this, Flynn affirms that Disney suggests being overweight is a hindrance to important activities, and, therefore uses the movie to discourage obesity. However, with this point, Flynn doesn't take into account that Russell's lack of "outdoorsiness" is almost certainly because he is nine years old, which would completely contradict her argument.
In addition to this, the whole idea of the rugid South American landscape contrasting with the soft, round nature of the characters, while technically true, wasn't that convincing. When quoting Immanuel Kant in a work about Up, there better be an obvious point to be made. Unfortunately, there was no such point here.
In short, everything in this text was off, from the strange points to the stating that fat is a connotation-less word, and Flynn wasn't convincing as a result.
This isn't to say that Flynn's article didn't have some redeeming qualities. The references to Wall-E, for example, were apropos, as Wall-E quite obviously provides a commentary on over-consumption and weight. However, just because one Disney movie has this theme doesn't mean that another must, and I found myself not fully seeing Flynn's connection between the two. This was one flaw in her argument.
Additionally, I found myself disagreeing with Flynn on a number of points. For one, she often draws attention to Russell's ironic lack of competence in the wilderness (after all, he is a Wilderness Explorer) and blames it on his portly body type. By doing this, Flynn affirms that Disney suggests being overweight is a hindrance to important activities, and, therefore uses the movie to discourage obesity. However, with this point, Flynn doesn't take into account that Russell's lack of "outdoorsiness" is almost certainly because he is nine years old, which would completely contradict her argument.
In addition to this, the whole idea of the rugid South American landscape contrasting with the soft, round nature of the characters, while technically true, wasn't that convincing. When quoting Immanuel Kant in a work about Up, there better be an obvious point to be made. Unfortunately, there was no such point here.
In short, everything in this text was off, from the strange points to the stating that fat is a connotation-less word, and Flynn wasn't convincing as a result.
Up
Yup. Watching Up again confirmed what I expected. I do still have a heart and Up has quite the affinity for tugging at said heart. Obviously everyone will draw attention to the deeply saddening opening five minutes or so but the entire movie continues to prove heart-warming in a uniquely somber way. Carl Fredricksen's (the protagonist) commitment to upheld his promise of moving to Paradise Falls that he made with his deceased wife is what makes the movie so relatable and, therefore, so good. Whether we're old or not, everyone can appreciate the true love that these two share. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of why Up is such a fan favorite.
Really everything is on point. Visually, stunning seems to be the only word that can accurately describe the film. With a floating house, multicolored balloons that reflect light like prisms, and great, rugid landscape, I couldn't look away for fear of missing another moment of Pixar's awesome animation. This much was apparent to me upon my first viewing of Up some 5+ years ago, but upon watching it again, I also gained way more respect for the symbolism in the movie. As Carl speaks to the house, it comes to symbolize his always-present connection to his wife just as the adventure book represents his commitment to her. Additionally, Charles Muntz (Carl's eventual counterpart) offers great insight into how a failure to move on from the past can lead to an unfulfilling life.
This combination of imagery, symbolism, and message is undoubtably the reason for Up's success. Boasting a box office of $300 million, a well-deserved Oscar, and fantastic ratings, Up truly has become the epitome of what animated film should be.
Friday, March 20, 2015
Sunday, March 8, 2015
The Incredibles 2
The hype is real:
http://www.christiantimes.com/article/the.incredibles.2.release.date.plot.spoilers.news.helen.and.bob.quitting.superhero.business.find.out.summer.2016/51370.htm
http://www.christiantimes.com/article/the.incredibles.2.release.date.plot.spoilers.news.helen.and.bob.quitting.superhero.business.find.out.summer.2016/51370.htm
Disney Satire
According to Clickhole, Disney has created its first ever Indian princess and her name is Ananya. Following the article, the movie in which Ananya is set to star in has actually already been created and the Disney execs are simply waiting for the right time to release the movie. Apparently America is too white currently and would not appreciate an Indian Disney princess. “It’s really too bad, because when Ananya sings the incredible ‘My Own Woman’ at the film’s climax, it’s an amazing moment that transcends racial background,” said Disney PR vice president George Wexler. “But until our audience is ready for her, just be prepared for tons of white princesses.” Apparently Disney also has movies made with Vietnamese, Ethiopian, Chinese, Iranian, and Eskimo princess but is afraid that they will not resonate with white America. For now, all movies are currently waiting out the racial demographics of the U.S.
Of course everything you have just read is satirical, found in a satire article written quite well by Clickhole, a parody site launched by The Onion. The article (I'll put the link below) scrolled across my newsfeed about a week ago and I was immediately interested until I took a read. It took me a couple paragraphs in to realize the satirical nature of it and then my interest became entertainment. It was pretty funny.
Here's for a good laugh:
http://www.clickhole.com/article/awesome-disney-has-created-its-first-ever-indian-p-1910
Of course everything you have just read is satirical, found in a satire article written quite well by Clickhole, a parody site launched by The Onion. The article (I'll put the link below) scrolled across my newsfeed about a week ago and I was immediately interested until I took a read. It took me a couple paragraphs in to realize the satirical nature of it and then my interest became entertainment. It was pretty funny.
Here's for a good laugh:
http://www.clickhole.com/article/awesome-disney-has-created-its-first-ever-indian-p-1910
The Dress
With all the news about The Dress last week, who would've thought The Lion King did it first?
Gael Sweeney Response
It's no secret that The Lion King is very much a movie based on stereotypically defined gender roles. The males are seen as the macho breadwinners while the females are the tender mothers and caregivers. However, this otherwise unpresuming aspect of the movie becomes rather noteworthy with the inclusion of two key characters: Timon and Pumbaa. Many have concluded these two as being Disney's way of introducing gay characters into their movies, including Gael Sweeney, who in his essay "Timon and Pumbaa's Alternative Lifestyle Dilemma," argues that the two characters indeed represent a homosexual partnership.
The main reason cited for Timon and Pumbaa being gay is due to their flamboyancy, which Sweeney believes is highly accentuated through contrast with other characters. These two seem to walk with more character, are overly dramatic when compared to others, and express an especially high affinity for song. However, Sweeney is also keen to note a few specific scenes. For one, he mentions and re-mentions the scene where Timon wears a hula skirt to distract Scar which is one most pivotal scenes in the movie. For Sweeney, this emphasis on display by Disney on Timon represents one of the reasons he is homosexual. Additionally, when Nala returns to Simba, Sweeney cites Timon's expression of the "three becoming two" as a way of heterosexual love breaking up the homosexual domestic life.
In my own opinion, I don't consider Timon and Pumbaa to be gay. Rather I think of them as two pre-pubescent friends with no thoughts of sexuality, something which Sweeney actually alludes to in his argument. Although I don't agree with him, I do consider his argument convincing. His examples are spot on, his organization is solid, and, as mentioned above, he did provide some counterarguments. However, after reading the piece, I was left scratching my head in some sections. Most prominently was the section about Judaism and Timon. In it, Sweeney argues, quite stereotypically and bigoted even, that Timon is actually a New York Jew. Although his points have validity, the argument was weirdly out of place in an argument about homosexuality. This definitely detracted from his overall purpose.
Overall, I could see why people might consider Timon and Pumbaa as homosexual partners but judging just from The Lion King itself, it's hard to tell. I feel like if I had just seen The Lion King 1.5 and The Lion King 2, along with the TV spin-offs (all of which are mentioned in Sweeney's essay), I would have had more reference in regards to the topic.
The Lion King
The Lion King has a special place in my heart of nostalgia. In a nutshell, that was my childhood. I had the stuffed animals, always remembered singing Hakuna Matata and all the other perfect songs from the movie, and saw all the spin-off movies and tv shows. I even went to the Lion King play when it came to town. Anyways, watching the movie again being older this time didn't change anything. It still was and always will be awesome.
The emotions that the movie develop amongst the viewers are particularly noteworthy. We truly grow with the characters. From the onset, we hate Scar, enjoy the mischievousness of Simba, and most importantly fall in love with the noble Mufasa. Forget Jack in Titanic or Dumbledore in Harry Potter, Mufasa's death will forever be the most tragic in movie deaths. With Simba sitting there in his arms as he fades, I thought I was going to start balling with my roommate right next to me (which would have lead to an interesting conversation, but I digress.) Terriblly sad? Yes, but it marks only the first half of the movie.
After, Simba becomes the main character who must follow in his father's footsteps - a classic story line. However, he isn't alone. Here we are introduced to perhaps the best personas in the whole movie. Yes, Timon and Pumbaa. This loud, in-your-face, arguably gay couple definitely lighten up the film while generating real humor. Eventually Simba, however, runs into Nala and the whole crew makes its way back to Pride Rock, where Simba clashes with and climatically defeats Scar, bringing happiness back to the kingdom.
In the Hamlet-esque plot, Simba comes full circle and is able to mature into the lion he was destined to be. There will only be one Mufasa but Simba is about as close as one can be. And that, my friend's is the Circle of Life - one of the many beautiful aspects of the Lion King.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Funny Memes
Memes are always reliable to brighten up your day and I found two great ones on the amazing website iwastesomuchtime.com today (I know I have a problem.) The first one includes Bruce from Finding Nemo so it technically fits the Disney criteria and the second needs no explanation. Enjoy.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Amanda Putnam Response
There has been much attention shown towards the way gender has been portrayed in most Disney movie since the creation of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Many people, both writers and regular movie viewers, have noted how the villains in these movies possess more gender-bending qualities while the heroines and heroes remain the epitome of the classic girly-girl or tough guy, respectively, that has become ingrained in many of us. Amanda Putnam is one of these people who has noted this trend. In her essay "Mean Ladies: Transgendered Villains in Disney Films," she argues that through this juxtaposition of flamboyant villains with stereotypically proper protagonists, Disney films are encouraging us to look at transgendered people in a negative light.
Her overall structure and the way she accomplishes this represents one of the strengths of the piece. First she gives a thorough description of the gender-pushing characteristics amongst the female villains, then she explains the significance behind this, and finally she repeats a similar process for the feminine male villains in the films (even if the paper's title only mentions female characters.) This isn't to say there weren't flaws in the article.
To begin, I should note she focuses on a number of certain characters, such as Cinderella's stepsisters and Ursula on the girl's side and Scar and Jafar on the guy's side, to name a few. As a whole, I actually thought she did a better job detailing the transgendered aspects of the guys, such as when she describes Scar as having " a lack of physical prowess, his language choice, and the lack of female mate." These characteristics strongly speak the flamboyant nature of many of the male villains which I thought lacked in Putnam's description of the female villains. When discussing this, it seemed Putnam mentioned areas of ugliness, such as the stepsisters having big feet, rather than actually having transgender qualities. In this area, I thought the paper was lacking.
Additionally, the overall purpose of the paper, to describe how "when transgendered qualities are marked as only being apparent in evil characters, then a stigmatized standard of normative behavior is being created and promoted," was not entirely met. In this quote, it is easy to see that Putnam really means to draw attention to how this representation of flamboyant qualities affects the public. However, the majority of the paper is devoted to detailing the characteristics in Disney villains. I will state that Putnam is commendable for noting this point in her paper. She states that, while the juxtaposition of good vs evil isn't the strongest argument for proving this point, it's the best she can do. Although this was noble of her, by failing to fully connect everything to the original thesis, the whole paper missed the mark on what it promised, a cardinal sin for academic writing.
Her overall structure and the way she accomplishes this represents one of the strengths of the piece. First she gives a thorough description of the gender-pushing characteristics amongst the female villains, then she explains the significance behind this, and finally she repeats a similar process for the feminine male villains in the films (even if the paper's title only mentions female characters.) This isn't to say there weren't flaws in the article.
To begin, I should note she focuses on a number of certain characters, such as Cinderella's stepsisters and Ursula on the girl's side and Scar and Jafar on the guy's side, to name a few. As a whole, I actually thought she did a better job detailing the transgendered aspects of the guys, such as when she describes Scar as having " a lack of physical prowess, his language choice, and the lack of female mate." These characteristics strongly speak the flamboyant nature of many of the male villains which I thought lacked in Putnam's description of the female villains. When discussing this, it seemed Putnam mentioned areas of ugliness, such as the stepsisters having big feet, rather than actually having transgender qualities. In this area, I thought the paper was lacking.
Additionally, the overall purpose of the paper, to describe how "when transgendered qualities are marked as only being apparent in evil characters, then a stigmatized standard of normative behavior is being created and promoted," was not entirely met. In this quote, it is easy to see that Putnam really means to draw attention to how this representation of flamboyant qualities affects the public. However, the majority of the paper is devoted to detailing the characteristics in Disney villains. I will state that Putnam is commendable for noting this point in her paper. She states that, while the juxtaposition of good vs evil isn't the strongest argument for proving this point, it's the best she can do. Although this was noble of her, by failing to fully connect everything to the original thesis, the whole paper missed the mark on what it promised, a cardinal sin for academic writing.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Cinderella
I saw a commercial for Disney's new, non-animated Cinderella movie which is set to come out in 2015. Here's the trailer; it looks pretty solid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20DF6U1HcGQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20DF6U1HcGQ
Dopey's Legacy
"Dopey's Legacy" was definitely not my favorite piece we've read in class. In fact, I don't think it would be an understatement to say I strongly disliked (maybe even hated) it. It wasn't anything about the way it was written, the style, or anything like that. In fact there were definitely some positives that the text brought to the table, such the organization structure (with clearly outlined subheadings detailing the introduction, main body, and conclusion). The thing that really made me angry was that "Dopey's Legacy" didn't deliver on the promise it made. It deviated from the self-proclaimed main point of the piece.
The group of authors who wrote the article stated that their end-game was to prove that Disney's portrayal of certain characters created a bad stigma for the mentally handicapped. However, this was not done. Rather than focusing on the effect of such a portray of mental illness in Disney movies, only the existence of mental illness in the movies was conveyed.
The majority of the paper simply summarized examples of the three Disney characters that were thought to exhibit mental handicap. They were Gus in Cinderalla, Dopey in Snow White, and Lefou in Beauty and the Beast. For the most part, I agreed with the examples they presented to highlight this point (although almost everything about Lefou was ridiculous.) Mentioning that only Dopey of all the dwarves had blue eyes, for example, was interesting. However, this was not the purpose of the paper.
Everything could have been perfectly written, it could have had perfect structure and everything, but if something is promised, it must be delivered for the paper to be successful. For this reason, the work was doomed from the start.
The group of authors who wrote the article stated that their end-game was to prove that Disney's portrayal of certain characters created a bad stigma for the mentally handicapped. However, this was not done. Rather than focusing on the effect of such a portray of mental illness in Disney movies, only the existence of mental illness in the movies was conveyed.
The majority of the paper simply summarized examples of the three Disney characters that were thought to exhibit mental handicap. They were Gus in Cinderalla, Dopey in Snow White, and Lefou in Beauty and the Beast. For the most part, I agreed with the examples they presented to highlight this point (although almost everything about Lefou was ridiculous.) Mentioning that only Dopey of all the dwarves had blue eyes, for example, was interesting. However, this was not the purpose of the paper.
Everything could have been perfectly written, it could have had perfect structure and everything, but if something is promised, it must be delivered for the paper to be successful. For this reason, the work was doomed from the start.
Tracey Mollet Response
In Tracey Mollet's "With a smile and a song..." she aims to link the story of Snow White to the climate of the United States during the 1930s. Although there were a few shortcomings in her argument, overall I thought her piece was quite effective and her central idea (of linking history to literature) was novel.
To begin, Mollet backed her argument up the most of probably anyone we've read in class thus far. The first couple of pages are devoted entirely to presenting all the relevant background information regarding the cultural importance of Disney films. She is also successful in offering counter arguments by presenting information about Jack Zipes, a staunch Disney critic. By presenting this information, Mollet also utilizes the "funnel down" approach we discussed in class, first mentioning Disney films in general, then their cultural importance, and finally the significance of Snow White on 1930s America.
As a history buff, I found this development particularly interesting, as she described how Snow White ultimately was supposed to give America hope of recovery after a number of tough years financially. Nevertheless, it did seem like Mollet was over speculating in some instances, and while I could technically see her point, it just seemed like a stretch. For example, describing the Witch as the epitome of the 1920s mindset that needed to be dismissed in the 30s wasn't all too convincing. Additionally, there were a few instances where the flow between history and movie just didn't work, although that isn't entirely unexpected. When linking two very distinct things, it can be difficult to find the perfect balance, which Mollet tried hard to do.
Overall, the piece was well done and the arguments were fresh. Although many will consider it a pro Disney piece, more than anything it was explanatory, which is something I admire. She presented her views in a calculated way and let her ideas talk rather than her ego, which is easier said than done. I'm looking at you Zipes.
To begin, Mollet backed her argument up the most of probably anyone we've read in class thus far. The first couple of pages are devoted entirely to presenting all the relevant background information regarding the cultural importance of Disney films. She is also successful in offering counter arguments by presenting information about Jack Zipes, a staunch Disney critic. By presenting this information, Mollet also utilizes the "funnel down" approach we discussed in class, first mentioning Disney films in general, then their cultural importance, and finally the significance of Snow White on 1930s America.
As a history buff, I found this development particularly interesting, as she described how Snow White ultimately was supposed to give America hope of recovery after a number of tough years financially. Nevertheless, it did seem like Mollet was over speculating in some instances, and while I could technically see her point, it just seemed like a stretch. For example, describing the Witch as the epitome of the 1920s mindset that needed to be dismissed in the 30s wasn't all too convincing. Additionally, there were a few instances where the flow between history and movie just didn't work, although that isn't entirely unexpected. When linking two very distinct things, it can be difficult to find the perfect balance, which Mollet tried hard to do.
Overall, the piece was well done and the arguments were fresh. Although many will consider it a pro Disney piece, more than anything it was explanatory, which is something I admire. She presented her views in a calculated way and let her ideas talk rather than her ego, which is easier said than done. I'm looking at you Zipes.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Hans Cristian Mermaid
Hans Cristian Andersen's The Little Mermaid is definitely not for the faint of heart. With tongues being cut off, searing pain being felt due to walking, and a bloody murder plot, the story written in 1837 certainly differs a bit from Disney's timeless adaptation. While the two have the same general story line of a mermaid growing legs in the hopes of wooing a human prince, there are other key differences, aside from the aforementioned occasional grotesqueness in Anderson's story. For one, the Andersen Little Mermaid is quite passive, not talking a lot to her sisters or father while Ariel is the opposite. She's outspoken and dynamic. However, the true difference lies in the protagonist mermaid's end game. For Ariel, she's after love for the sake of love. Andersen's Little Mermaid, however, uses love as a means to gain immortality. I was actually quite surprised at how religious, even existential his story was.
While it was definitely a different perspective, I did enjoy Andersen's story a lot...except for the ending. I hate fru fru, overly cliche endings and Andersen, the great story writer, surprising used one in The Little Mermaid. The protagonist was so noble that she will eventually be granted immortality in heaven because of her kindness? Come on. It's a bit like having a movie end in someone waking up from a dream. No one likes it. Although, Andersen is a staple in fairy tales and it was written a while ago, so I'm inclined to give him a pass, but still...
Short, very stream of consciousness blog post but it's all I've got for now.
While it was definitely a different perspective, I did enjoy Andersen's story a lot...except for the ending. I hate fru fru, overly cliche endings and Andersen, the great story writer, surprising used one in The Little Mermaid. The protagonist was so noble that she will eventually be granted immortality in heaven because of her kindness? Come on. It's a bit like having a movie end in someone waking up from a dream. No one likes it. Although, Andersen is a staple in fairy tales and it was written a while ago, so I'm inclined to give him a pass, but still...
Short, very stream of consciousness blog post but it's all I've got for now.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
The Little Mermaid
As a kid I always remembered The Little Mermaid being one of my favorite movies and, after watching it again, I can see why. The animation was cute, yet exciting at times and the timeless plot of star crossed lovers rarely disappoints (even if it is terribly overdone.) Even the songs were great and this is coming from a guy who usually hates songs in movies. However, these were different. Fun and catchy. That's what movie songs should be and these didn't fail to deliver with "Part of Your World" and "Under the Sea" headlining with "Poor Unfortunate Souls" adding a different edge. In these ways the songs were also quite symbolic of the goings-on in the movie, another plus.
In comparing this film to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, I could definitely note similarities. For one, a large part of the animation was devoted to the "cuteness" of animals. This was done throughout with Sebastian, Scuttle, and Flounder leading the way just as the dwarfs and animals did in Snow White. The whole love story with the kiss of true love also linked the two, as it does with many Disney movies. The witch villains did as well. Seeing the two movies almost simultaneous makes me realize how many Disney films have the same structure and techniques. Here, we can see Disney incorporates minor plot changes (such as being a mermaid) into an otherwise generic, stock story-line. It is definitely effective, but nevertheless is a little disappointing, but I digress.
Returning to The Little Mermaid, I could definitely see how many people would be disappointed with the message it conveys, which has been quite public and is something I'm sure we'll discuss in class. The fact that Ariel drops everything, even abandoning her family, for an unknown man (just as Snow White does) doesn't give a positive vibe to young girls, and even to boys for that matter. And that Ariel is initially able to woo her prince with just her looks, not even being able to talk, is even worse. I'm not someone to usually read too deeply into something but this was so apparent I think most kids would pick up on it at some level subconsciously.
In comparing this film to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, I could definitely note similarities. For one, a large part of the animation was devoted to the "cuteness" of animals. This was done throughout with Sebastian, Scuttle, and Flounder leading the way just as the dwarfs and animals did in Snow White. The whole love story with the kiss of true love also linked the two, as it does with many Disney movies. The witch villains did as well. Seeing the two movies almost simultaneous makes me realize how many Disney films have the same structure and techniques. Here, we can see Disney incorporates minor plot changes (such as being a mermaid) into an otherwise generic, stock story-line. It is definitely effective, but nevertheless is a little disappointing, but I digress.
Returning to The Little Mermaid, I could definitely see how many people would be disappointed with the message it conveys, which has been quite public and is something I'm sure we'll discuss in class. The fact that Ariel drops everything, even abandoning her family, for an unknown man (just as Snow White does) doesn't give a positive vibe to young girls, and even to boys for that matter. And that Ariel is initially able to woo her prince with just her looks, not even being able to talk, is even worse. I'm not someone to usually read too deeply into something but this was so apparent I think most kids would pick up on it at some level subconsciously.
Big Hero Six
What do Tarzan, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Little Mermaid all have in common? Yes they are all Disney classics but now, thanks to recent developments, they all are now also trailing Big Hero Six on the list of highest grossing Disney movies of all time.
Big Hero Six, which centers around a group of robots led by a boy who try to save the world, now ranks third on the list of highest grossing animated Disney films, behind only The Lion King and Frozen. As of now, it has grossed $220 million. There are a couple caveats, however. This only represents domestic earnings, not worldwide, and does not include Pixar films, as Disney and Pixar are considered different entities. Not to mention inflation.
Nevertheless, having just been released in theaters on November 7 of this past year, the film has been ridiculously popular already and is likely to continue it has just been released on DVD and memorabilia will soon spread, with the fluffy robot Baymax leading the charge. It has also been nominated for an Oscar in best animated film of the year.
I will admit, I haven't yet seen the movie but I was bombarded with articles across the Internet advertising its success this past week and will certainly check it out when I get the chance. Good movies often are hard to come by and I'm looking forward to seeing it.
Big Hero Six, which centers around a group of robots led by a boy who try to save the world, now ranks third on the list of highest grossing animated Disney films, behind only The Lion King and Frozen. As of now, it has grossed $220 million. There are a couple caveats, however. This only represents domestic earnings, not worldwide, and does not include Pixar films, as Disney and Pixar are considered different entities. Not to mention inflation.
Nevertheless, having just been released in theaters on November 7 of this past year, the film has been ridiculously popular already and is likely to continue it has just been released on DVD and memorabilia will soon spread, with the fluffy robot Baymax leading the charge. It has also been nominated for an Oscar in best animated film of the year.
I will admit, I haven't yet seen the movie but I was bombarded with articles across the Internet advertising its success this past week and will certainly check it out when I get the chance. Good movies often are hard to come by and I'm looking forward to seeing it.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
It's been a while since I've seen Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Like a really long while. I think the last time I had seen this movie was when I was 4 years old, so I definitely had some new perspectives watching it as an older (and hopefully much wiser) college student. The main thing I noted throughout the movie, which was made in 1937, was just how different it was from any of the animated movies that had been made within the time I've been alive. For one, there was a serious lack of action. The movie is already a short 80 something minutes, but even this isn't quite indicative of the lack of action in the movie. The majority of this is taken up with musical numbers or irrelevant scenes, such as the dwarfs cleaning themselves or Snow White tiding up the cabin. The relatively simple plot could've been achieved in 30 minutes. This leads me to think that the reason the movie was so revolutionary, therefore, was because of the animation and sound which were truly stunning at the time. And even watching it today, I definitely noted these aspects as being quite impressive considering the film was created so long ago. I forget who, but one of the authors we read in class mentioned that the early Disney movies were less so about the plot and more so about Disney portraying his immense skills. At the time I dismissed this view as ridiculous, but seeing this movie, it starts to make sense. With all the said, I don't mean to bash Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs because it was ground-breaking after all and a great movie; I simply mean to draw differences from modern movies.
With this more serious note mentioned, I will now commence rambling about the things that surprised/annoyed/interested me in the movie. For one, the early scenes were quite startling, particularly the scenes with Queen and the magic mirror and the spooky forest animals. As a little kid, I must've been terrified watching these parts. Shortly after the movie did become significantly cheerier but, I was taken back by this. I also could not stand the voices in the movie. Seriously, they were awful. Of course Snow White's voice was painfully high-pitched but even the dwarfs and the prince were about as squeaky as a pre-pubescent boy. All were very annoying to the ear. Finally, I couldn't believe Disney's depiction of Dopey throughout the movie. It was as if Disney was just making light of mental disability and it made me very uncomfortable at times. I know the times were different back then but still.
So these were my initial views of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Like I mentioned before, lots of rambling with few to none profound statements. But that's okay sometimes, I guess. Right?
Saturday, February 7, 2015
Disney and Yik Yak
Having finished a long day of classes last week, I came back to my room and opened up Yik Yak. If you don't know what Yik Yak is, consider yourself lucky. It's an anonymous social media app based on location where you can complain at Marketplace dinner, complain about finals, or complain about tent checks in Kville. In general, there's lots of complaining. But there is also some really funny posts and the app also features different themes every day. Anyway, when I opened the app, I was greeted by the featured "Modern Day Disney Princesses" yaks. These are some of the favorites I found...that are also appropriate.
Let it go = #YOLO
Repunzel let down your hair!
I would but I wanted to be socially acceptable so I cut it, sorry!
Ana: Which filter should I use?
Else: Amarooooo, amaroooooo
Beauty and the Beast Mode
Li Shang: Be a man!
Mulan: I define myself as gender neutral.
Tinderella: is he bae *swipe left* or nah?
Jack Zipes Response
Jack Zipes' "Breaking the Disney Spells" takes quite the anti-Disney viewpoint as he attempts to describe Walt Disney's rise to power and the conservative views the company tries to spread. Although the argument itself is interesting, the way he went about proving it is ineffective and many points weren't developed well.
To begin, there were two distinct parts of the academic article, the first of which discussed the more general development of fairy tales while the second introduced Disney's role in its evolution. I found there was very little overlap between the two and a lot of the information was just unnecessary, thus representing my first piece of beef I have with the paper. It's nice and all that he writes about traditional fairy tales in medieval England but I frankly couldn't care less. And where's the tangible relationship of that to Disney?
Complaint number two deals with the over-analyzing, too-much reaching claims that Zipes made throughout the paper. Most ridiculous was probably the description of phallic objects in a number of early Disney movies that supposedly represented the male writers and the gender views they were promoting. Cat tails and pens (which somehow appeared left and right in these films according to Zipes) provide us with some examples. There really isn't much to say about that other than ridiculous. A few claims were less outrageous but still noteworthy. Zipes states, for example, that the purpose of Disney films was to celebrate the greatness of Disney and that the picture, sounds, and dialogue were simply means to this end. This just flat-out does not seem sensical. Lastly, some film analysis seemed like he was trying too hard. The idea that Puss In Boots represents the "deepest oedipal desire of every young boy," although novel, is pretty comical to me.
Finally the extended metaphor of breaking the Disney spell came off as unprofessional. Like him or not, what Disney was able to do with his company is truly remarkable and he should be given some credit. By referring to it as "his magical rise" and a "magical spell," Zipes completely discredits all of Disney's success as pure luck, simply as if he was conning America. This could have been done much more tastefully and would have improved the work as a whole.
To begin, there were two distinct parts of the academic article, the first of which discussed the more general development of fairy tales while the second introduced Disney's role in its evolution. I found there was very little overlap between the two and a lot of the information was just unnecessary, thus representing my first piece of beef I have with the paper. It's nice and all that he writes about traditional fairy tales in medieval England but I frankly couldn't care less. And where's the tangible relationship of that to Disney?
Complaint number two deals with the over-analyzing, too-much reaching claims that Zipes made throughout the paper. Most ridiculous was probably the description of phallic objects in a number of early Disney movies that supposedly represented the male writers and the gender views they were promoting. Cat tails and pens (which somehow appeared left and right in these films according to Zipes) provide us with some examples. There really isn't much to say about that other than ridiculous. A few claims were less outrageous but still noteworthy. Zipes states, for example, that the purpose of Disney films was to celebrate the greatness of Disney and that the picture, sounds, and dialogue were simply means to this end. This just flat-out does not seem sensical. Lastly, some film analysis seemed like he was trying too hard. The idea that Puss In Boots represents the "deepest oedipal desire of every young boy," although novel, is pretty comical to me.
Finally the extended metaphor of breaking the Disney spell came off as unprofessional. Like him or not, what Disney was able to do with his company is truly remarkable and he should be given some credit. By referring to it as "his magical rise" and a "magical spell," Zipes completely discredits all of Disney's success as pure luck, simply as if he was conning America. This could have been done much more tastefully and would have improved the work as a whole.
Kevin Shortsleeve Response
It's always a slippery slope when you compare someone to Hitler in an academic paper, especially when that person was a creator of children's cartoons. Not only did Kevin Shortsleeve make this comparison about Walt Disney in his essay "The Wonderful World of the Depression: Disney, Despotism, and the 1930s. Or, Why Disney Scares Us" but he stood by it, quite forcefully too. Likening the euphemisms the Disney Company uses for employees (such as cast members and learning leaders) to the Nazi ideology of a Final Solution, nearly a page and a half of his essay was spent developing this point. Ridiculous to the point of being comical? Absolutely. This extended analogy was just one of the things I disagreed with in this paper. Others included the descriptions of all Disney movies balancing Jeffersonian and Orwellian themes and the deeper subliminal messages behind some of the films.
With this said, we are often much more passionate about things we oppose and Shortsleeve's piece was actually very well composed, even with that terrible Hitler reference. Structurally, the format of the work was conducive to easy understanding, with clear subtitles and good transitions between different themes. Additionally, he clearly mentioned the purpose for which he was writing the essay and the goals he hoped to accomplish by the end. He states in the first paragraph "I seek to identify a basic rift that occurred nearly seventy years ago, which has fueled paranoia in Disney corporate, artistic, critical, and public spheres - a sort of Disney "string" theory," immediately giving an idea to the path he would be taking throughout his essay.
Additionally, Shortsleeve tackled this challenge in more effective ways than other authors we have read. For one, he was able to effectively synthesize a number of outside sources, implying his point without shoving it down our throats, an always effective move. He also noted how he was a huge Disney fan as a kid and still remains one today, even if he has issues with the company, making the paper relatable. Key uses of first person such as this worked well throughout the piece. Finally, as a bit of a history nerd, I loved Shortsleeve's historical perspective on the company. The chronological progression of the Disney through the Great Depression (ironically referred to as "an ideal incubator"), World War II, and the modern world was, well, cool.
All in all the piece had flaws (Hitler cough cough), but was probably my favorite read of the semester so far.
With this said, we are often much more passionate about things we oppose and Shortsleeve's piece was actually very well composed, even with that terrible Hitler reference. Structurally, the format of the work was conducive to easy understanding, with clear subtitles and good transitions between different themes. Additionally, he clearly mentioned the purpose for which he was writing the essay and the goals he hoped to accomplish by the end. He states in the first paragraph "I seek to identify a basic rift that occurred nearly seventy years ago, which has fueled paranoia in Disney corporate, artistic, critical, and public spheres - a sort of Disney "string" theory," immediately giving an idea to the path he would be taking throughout his essay.
Additionally, Shortsleeve tackled this challenge in more effective ways than other authors we have read. For one, he was able to effectively synthesize a number of outside sources, implying his point without shoving it down our throats, an always effective move. He also noted how he was a huge Disney fan as a kid and still remains one today, even if he has issues with the company, making the paper relatable. Key uses of first person such as this worked well throughout the piece. Finally, as a bit of a history nerd, I loved Shortsleeve's historical perspective on the company. The chronological progression of the Disney through the Great Depression (ironically referred to as "an ideal incubator"), World War II, and the modern world was, well, cool.
All in all the piece had flaws (Hitler cough cough), but was probably my favorite read of the semester so far.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
A Picture's Worth a Thousand Words
This past Wednesday night (1/21/15) Marketplace hosted a Disney themed night. Among the food featured was Nemo's Clam Chowder, Elsa's Frozen Gelato, Barbossa's Jerk Snapper, and my favorite, Pooh's Spare Ribs. Weird combination? Maybe. Fun time? Definitely.
Henry Giroux Response
In his work "The Disneyfication of Children's Culture," Giroux describes the need for us to look at Disney films as teaching influences and not just forms of entertainment. Although this view would suggest a neutral take on the motives of Disney, this isn't actually the case. One of his main topics is the noting of stereotypes about races and gender roles that are accentuated in a number of films, something that was novel and interesting. At least for me anyways. After all, learning that The Little Mermaid encourages feminine dependence and that Aladdin is about as racist as can be will make you question your childhood. Nevertheless, it definitely opened my eyes in many ways.
Overall I thought Giroux's argument was very logical. Although the organization could have been a bit better, with headlined sections rather than ambiguous roman numerals, his points were coherent. He starts with some personal background information, continues by leading in to his thesis, and finally using critical analysis of films and Disney's business as a whole to corroborate his claim. This is to say he actually had tangible examples, which is always a good thing. Yes, the text was rather tense which usually has me running, but it was also funny. It's phrases like "They also surrender the responsibility to challenge increasing attempts by corporate moguls and conservative evangelicals to reduce generations of children to either consumers for new commercial markets or Christian soldiers for the evolving Newt Gingrich world order" that make a work memorable. Funny yes, but colorful metaphors like this also served a point.
Nevertheless, there were definitely points I disagreed with. Giroux often described the Disney Corporations two motives for operating as being to earn profit and to spread conservative views across America. However, I would argue that the latter is simply a bi-product of the former. If you read my previous blog post, you probably know by now that I like money. Money's good, and that's all the really matters in a business. In the 90s, most of America held fairly traditional views about gender and race relationships and by making movies that didn't overstep these accepted customs in this time (which is the time frame of the majority of the movies Giroux references) Disney was able to make his films desirable to the biggest possible audience. In this sense, the conservative views stem from the desire of profit and as society evolves, Disney likely will too. And they have. Films featuring different races (such as The Princess and the Frog) and films with more independent female characters (like Brave) signal this trend.
Overall, though, the critical essay was something I generally agreed with and it provided us with a good introduction to this course. Good job Giroux.
Overall I thought Giroux's argument was very logical. Although the organization could have been a bit better, with headlined sections rather than ambiguous roman numerals, his points were coherent. He starts with some personal background information, continues by leading in to his thesis, and finally using critical analysis of films and Disney's business as a whole to corroborate his claim. This is to say he actually had tangible examples, which is always a good thing. Yes, the text was rather tense which usually has me running, but it was also funny. It's phrases like "They also surrender the responsibility to challenge increasing attempts by corporate moguls and conservative evangelicals to reduce generations of children to either consumers for new commercial markets or Christian soldiers for the evolving Newt Gingrich world order" that make a work memorable. Funny yes, but colorful metaphors like this also served a point.
Nevertheless, there were definitely points I disagreed with. Giroux often described the Disney Corporations two motives for operating as being to earn profit and to spread conservative views across America. However, I would argue that the latter is simply a bi-product of the former. If you read my previous blog post, you probably know by now that I like money. Money's good, and that's all the really matters in a business. In the 90s, most of America held fairly traditional views about gender and race relationships and by making movies that didn't overstep these accepted customs in this time (which is the time frame of the majority of the movies Giroux references) Disney was able to make his films desirable to the biggest possible audience. In this sense, the conservative views stem from the desire of profit and as society evolves, Disney likely will too. And they have. Films featuring different races (such as The Princess and the Frog) and films with more independent female characters (like Brave) signal this trend.
Overall, though, the critical essay was something I generally agreed with and it provided us with a good introduction to this course. Good job Giroux.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Janet Wasko Response
To quote the great (even at times godly) Jay-Z, "I'm not a businessman - I'm a business, man." After close analysis, it seems Jay-Z pretty much sums up Janet Wasko's work "Challenging Disney Myths" about as well as a person can in one sentence. All jokes aside, the main point from the piece is definitely to show how the life of Walt Disney and the company Disney interact together and how the perceptions about each developed over time.
As a kid, Disney was pretty much around me at all times. Whether I was watching Lion King with my sister in the family room or drinking from my Mickey Mouse sippy cup, the influence Disney had on me (and most other children, as my experiences were pretty common) is truly remarkable. Having such nostalgic memories about the Disney corporation is perhaps why it can be difficult to separate the magical characters we all grew to love as kids from the business side of Disney. I thought Wasko did a good job of distinguishing the two sides. However, it shouldn't take an economist to realize that money matters and companies won't produce unless they can make a profit. Like CEO Michael Eisner says in the article, "We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective."
While Wasko was successful at reiterating this point, I do disagree with the stance she takes on the matter, as she seems to be overly critical of the profit-driven motive that the Disney corporation has demonstrated. She derisively states that a video documentary of Walt Disney is in the works and how "of course" there is an online gift shop to buy biographies and other books. It is statements like this I disagree with. The truth is that money makes the world go round and I applaud any company that can carve a successful niche for itself. After all, no one is criticizing Nike for selling shoes or Apple for selling phones.
I think the same general statement can be said about Disney's life in general, another thing in which Wasko is critical. She draws attention to how the image of Walt Disney is different from the actual man. He is mentioned as being from a big city rather than a small town, acting reclusive and demanding rather than fatherly and comforting, and being power-hungry rather than humble. The fact that Walt Disney was able to focus attention towards his "magical" product while painting a positive image of himself is commendable, not erroneous. In fact, it should be argued that this is the goal of many businessmen and that many of the top entrepreneurs around the world have had similar success. In particular there are two points that Wasko states about Disney the man to argue against his serene public image that I find ridiculous. She states that he was quite bossy and thinks this should stain his image. However, this should be thought of as a positive, a sign he was a good boss. She also claims that acting as the face of the company and taking credit for the initial animations (even though he had help) was a bad thing. To this, I say that this will always be the norm. Bill Gates had Steve Wozniak and Michael Jordan had Scottie Pippen, but only Gates and Jordan are household names. That's just the way things will always be. There has to be a Batman whenever there's a Robbin.
While in these ways I thought Wosko was wrongly critical of Disney, both the company and the man, there were a number of valid points she brought forward in the piece. For one, the argument about much of Disney being geared towards adults was particularly strong. Obviously Disney holdings such as ESPN, ABC, etc. aren't reliant on children, but her point that Disney World isn't either stuck with me. She describes how in order for something to be family-geared (as many of us picture Disney as a whole being) there has to be aspects aimed at different demographics. The example of Winnie the Pooh was useful to express this view. Finally, the research done on the gender roles and also race roles in Disney movies was also fascinating and credible. In these areas, Wasko's reservations towards the wholesomeness of Disney seemed fair.
As a kid, Disney was pretty much around me at all times. Whether I was watching Lion King with my sister in the family room or drinking from my Mickey Mouse sippy cup, the influence Disney had on me (and most other children, as my experiences were pretty common) is truly remarkable. Having such nostalgic memories about the Disney corporation is perhaps why it can be difficult to separate the magical characters we all grew to love as kids from the business side of Disney. I thought Wasko did a good job of distinguishing the two sides. However, it shouldn't take an economist to realize that money matters and companies won't produce unless they can make a profit. Like CEO Michael Eisner says in the article, "We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective."
While Wasko was successful at reiterating this point, I do disagree with the stance she takes on the matter, as she seems to be overly critical of the profit-driven motive that the Disney corporation has demonstrated. She derisively states that a video documentary of Walt Disney is in the works and how "of course" there is an online gift shop to buy biographies and other books. It is statements like this I disagree with. The truth is that money makes the world go round and I applaud any company that can carve a successful niche for itself. After all, no one is criticizing Nike for selling shoes or Apple for selling phones.
I think the same general statement can be said about Disney's life in general, another thing in which Wasko is critical. She draws attention to how the image of Walt Disney is different from the actual man. He is mentioned as being from a big city rather than a small town, acting reclusive and demanding rather than fatherly and comforting, and being power-hungry rather than humble. The fact that Walt Disney was able to focus attention towards his "magical" product while painting a positive image of himself is commendable, not erroneous. In fact, it should be argued that this is the goal of many businessmen and that many of the top entrepreneurs around the world have had similar success. In particular there are two points that Wasko states about Disney the man to argue against his serene public image that I find ridiculous. She states that he was quite bossy and thinks this should stain his image. However, this should be thought of as a positive, a sign he was a good boss. She also claims that acting as the face of the company and taking credit for the initial animations (even though he had help) was a bad thing. To this, I say that this will always be the norm. Bill Gates had Steve Wozniak and Michael Jordan had Scottie Pippen, but only Gates and Jordan are household names. That's just the way things will always be. There has to be a Batman whenever there's a Robbin.
While in these ways I thought Wosko was wrongly critical of Disney, both the company and the man, there were a number of valid points she brought forward in the piece. For one, the argument about much of Disney being geared towards adults was particularly strong. Obviously Disney holdings such as ESPN, ABC, etc. aren't reliant on children, but her point that Disney World isn't either stuck with me. She describes how in order for something to be family-geared (as many of us picture Disney as a whole being) there has to be aspects aimed at different demographics. The example of Winnie the Pooh was useful to express this view. Finally, the research done on the gender roles and also race roles in Disney movies was also fascinating and credible. In these areas, Wasko's reservations towards the wholesomeness of Disney seemed fair.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Hello my name is...
Hello my name is Noah Gray, but if you're reading this, odds are you already knew that. Although it's an impossible task for anyone to describe himself in a couple hundred words, I'll try my best. For starters, I'm from Atlanta, Georgia and have lived in the same house my entire life. My family is relatively small - I have my parents, of course, an older sister, and a dog named Charlie (although he's a little schnauzer, he is quite mean.) As far as interests are concerned, it's pretty simple. I love sports. Sports, sports, sports. I've been playing soccer as long as I can remember and, while it may sound cheesy to say, there's no other feeling quite like being out on the pitch. I played practically everyday in high school either with my school or club team and it's a big part of who I am. In addition to soccer, I've played baseball, football, tennis, and basketball (yes basketball even if I'm only 5'6", although that isn't to say I was particularly good) throughout my life. As far as my rooting interests, I am a diehard New York Yankees and Uconn basketball fan, both of which I get a lot of flak for at Duke. It seems a bit random being from Georgia but my parents and pretty much the rest of my entire family are from Connecticut so it makes sense.
And here's the big kicker...I go to Duke. Again, you already knew that but it's definitely worth mentioning because it has become a huge part of me, even if I've only been here for a few months. Here at Duke, I'm involved with club soccer, the investment club, and some IM sports team. If you missed all the headlines in the newspaper a couple months back, our football team actually won the IM championship so, you know, we're kind of a big deal. All joking aside, I definitely feel at home at Duke and am exited to start a new semester with all of my friends here.
Although I am a potential economics major, I am pretty excited to taking Writing 101. I was the Editor-In-Chief of my high school's newspaper so I do have some experience and interest in writing. However, newspaper writing and academic/creative writing are very different so I'm looking forward to improving these different aspects to my writing and just becoming a better writer in general. Unlike some of my other classmates in Decoding Disney I bet, I don't have some prophetic reason for choosing a writing class about Disney. It's not like I was riding Space Mountain one day, saw an image of Walt Disney's head floating around and immediately thought I must take a writing class devoted to him in college. I wish it was something like that, but really I just watched a lot of disney movies as a kid and, when I saw this class at Duke, I thought it would be interesting. I'm a big fan of the old school Toy Story and Lion King- type movies and some of the more recent ones like Cars and Finding Nemo and have been to Disney World a few times (although it's been a while.) Anyways, it should be a fun semester - oh, and I feel like I should take a moment to thank first registration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)