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
Sunday, February 22, 2015
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)