*edit, 6:09pm* I have moved Mulan from the "one parent" category to the "parent death" category.
Having noticed that I started this blog on a Disney kick, with Disney and Pixar's "Monster's Inc." on Wednesday and a discussion of the Beast's age yesterday, I decided to round off the week with one of my favorite rants - What does Disney have against parents?
To keep this simple, I'm going to limit the discussion to animation, although live-action Disney is not blameless in this rant. (After all, is there anything more screwed up than the family in "The Parent Trap"? What parents decide "I can't stand to be around you anymore, so let's each take a twin and never speak to the other child again"?! But I digress.)
Disney has something major against complete families. To illustrate this point, I found a list of all of Disney's theatrically released animated films and organized them into categories.
Films in which one or both parents die during the movie
Bambi
The Lion King
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Mulan
Tarzan
Brother Bear
The Princess and the Frog
Films in which a main character is an orphan
Peter Pan
Lady and the Tramp
The Sword in the Stone
The Jungle Book
The Rescuers
The Fox and the Hound
The Black Cauldron
Oliver & Company
Dinosaur
The Emperor's New Groove
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Lilo & Stitch
Meet the Robinsons
Tangled
Films in which a main character has one parent only
Pinocchio
Dumbo
The Aristocats
The Great Mouse Detective
The Little Mermaid
The Rescuers Down Under
Beauty and the Beast
Aladdin
Pocahontas
Treasure Planet
Chicken Little
Bolt
Films in which a main character has a step-parent
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Cinderella
Films in which the parents are conspicuously missing
Fantasia
Alice in Wonderland
Robin Hood
The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh
Fantasia 2000
Home on the Range
Films in which a main character has two parents, but is kidnapped or raised elsewhere
Sleeping Beauty
One Hundred and One Dalmatians
Hercules
Films in which all main character have two parents who raise them
NONE
Not included in these lists are Pixar films, straight-to-video sequels, and a handful of films involving short stories featuring the Mickey Mouse crew...which I'll get to in a minute.
Now I'm certain some of these can (and will) be contested. Certainly there is overlap between categories. I will be happy to defend my categorizations for anybody who desires that. However, it remains clear that Disney films are overwhelmingly occupied by children who were raised without two parents. Now, this could simply be for plot purposes. A character who doesn't face adversity is often a boring one...and what adversity is more accessible to children than the absence of parents? Certainly, some Disney characters support this idea...for example, for Aladdin, Oliver, Hercules and Jim Hawkins their parentage is a primary motivator or catalyst in their stories.
However, that does not account for characters whose parentage is immaterial but still only seem to have one parent at most. Why can't Jasmine, Chicken Little or Pocahontas have mothers? Why remove Cinderella's father and replace her mother's spirit with a Fairy Godmother for that matter? To bring Pixar into it...why does Andy not have a father? It's not important, so why do it.
Further damning is the Mickey Mouse crew itself.
Again, with the classic group we have a huge bias against parents. First of all, over the entire long history of the group, Mickey and Minnie and Donald and Daisy have yet to get married...remaining couples without actual vows. Whatever...all of media is based on that pre-resolution couple's tension. Have Booth and Bones got together yet? I rest my case. More important are the kids.
First there's Maximilian Goof. Max appears in several cartoons, as well as the Goofy Movies. He is Goofy's son. The mother is missing. To my (sketchy) recollection, there was actually a sweet little cartoon featuring Goofy explaining his mother's death to a young, redhead Max, (known as Goofy Jr. at the time). Early cartoons featured a "Mrs. Goofy" but the assumption is that she passed away at some point.
Next are the nephew groups...Morty and Ferdie, Mickey's twin nephews, and Huey, Dewey and Louie, Donald Duck's triplet nephews.
I personally don't remember either group's parents...although further investigation has turned up some transient parental figures. Morty and Ferdie, the few times they appear, visit Mickey but make no mention of their parents. According to my research, Mickey has a sister...usually named "Amelia Fieldmouse" who may have a husband although he's never shown. Other nieces and nephews exist, but Morty and Ferdie are the only ones I remember. My point is that this sister is never mentioned unless Morty and Ferdie are present. Is Mickey's relationship with his sister that bad that he only talks to her when he wants his nephews to visit?
Huey, Dewey and Louie are even worse. They appear frequently in Disney, but never with their parents. (Research reveals a mom whose name changes much like Morty and Ferdie's, and either no father or a father in the hospital depending on the cartoon). They are often visiting their Uncle Donald (who, in the original "Donald's Nephews" is clearly NOT on good terms with his sister, whom he seems to be mad at). They also spend an extended time with their great uncle Scrooge McDuck in the Ducktales series. This says a lot about their mother, who seems to be on bad terms with both her brother and uncle and does not seem to mind spending great periods of time away from her hell-raising children.
All-in-all it paints a very sordid picture of Disney's idea of a family. Suddenly, "Lord of the Flies" doesn't seem so sensational.
Showing posts with label Blew My Mind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blew My Mind. Show all posts
Friday, 21 January 2011
Thursday, 20 January 2011
RU/18?
There is something that modern-day consumers of the entertainment industry COMPLETELY overlook 99% of the time - historical context.
We're not completely oblivious, our barely-remembered history classes let us realize when films are being absurdly anachronistic (Think "Knight's Tale".) or are sacrificing realism for sexiness. (Think almost all the costuming in period pieces)
However, you'd be surprised by some of the implications of a story taking place in a different country and/or different time period. Often, unless you really, really, REALLY think hard about it, the historical details will elude you. Usually, they're unimportant to the story as a whole. Why should you care then? BECAUSE THE FACTS, IF YOU REALIZE THEM, WILL BLOW YOUR MIND.
There is no better example of this than the age of characters. How often do we actually know the exact age of characters in any given story? It's very rare that it comes up if it's not a relevant plot point. However, even if it's not relevant to the plot, it can be relevant to how you view the message of the story.
In the literary world, my favorite example is Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet". It is a perfect example because it is possibly the most well-known and the most poorly-interpreted story of all time.
Here's why: It's not a love story. Not really. Or it is, but the romance isn't the point. It's right there in the first lines.
"Two households, both alike in dignity, In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean."
If the play were a research paper, this would be the thesis. The family feud is clearly the focus. As for the romance…well…
There are two major problems I have with the "romance" in Romeo and Juliet. First, Shakespeare makes it a point to show you that Romeo is fickle. At the beginning of the play, he's talking about how he's completely in love...with a girl named Rosalyn. He has a beautiful speech about how amazing she is, and then completely forgets about her when he meets Juliet. Second, given the time period...Juliet is most likely around 13 years old.
Do you know any 13 year olds? Talked to any Middle Schoolers lately? What would you say if they told you they had fallen in love and they couldn't live without their boyfriend/girlfriend?
Yeah, I'd laugh too.
The point is that it changes the meaning of the story. Drastically.
Ok, enough Shakespeare.
Disney movies are a particular love of mine. I love children's movies. They're bright and happy, full of color and music. Plus, I become amused at how grim tales become happily-ever-after Disney moments. Anyone who's read a real fairy tale has to find amusement in seeing how Disney skims past the less kid-friendly parts.
Historical context can tell us that Jasmine is likely around 13. She's pre-pubescent certainly, given her outfit. Yet she certainly has way more curves than a girl that age should. Disney makes their characters look older to ease the minds of the viewing audience.
Sure, this could just be a case of Disney not really caring for accuracy. One movie, however, makes me think otherwise. One movie has a character whose age is actually stated, although the implications are buried carefully, and is shown to look much older than he should.
The Beast, of "Beauty and the Beast", is 20 years old during the film. We know this. His enchanted rose is supposed to die on his 21st birthday, which is apparently at the end of the film. However, there is one more solid mention of time in the film.
One day, I was looking up the lyrics to "Be Our Guest" when I noticed a line I'd never paid attention to before. Lumiere is talking about how miserable they've been while under the curse and about how bored and how lonely they had been before she arrived.
During his dramatic little monologue, he tells Belle how long they'd been under the curse. "Ten years we have been rusting!" he claims.
Ten years. Ten years?! That would make the Beast ten or eleven when that enchantress cursed him. Ten! EVERYONE is selfish at ten years old. Kinda harsh. I thought maybe he wasn't aging or something, but the rose is set to die on his 21st birthday.
So he was ten. That's for certain. The portrait in his wing and the stained glass prologue don't show a ten year old though. They show him as he appears at the age of 21, when he transforms back from the Beast. Obviously, they couldn't show a ten year old being cursed...so they show a young man being cursed and hope nobody notices.
And be honest, did you?
We're not completely oblivious, our barely-remembered history classes let us realize when films are being absurdly anachronistic (Think "Knight's Tale".) or are sacrificing realism for sexiness. (Think almost all the costuming in period pieces)
However, you'd be surprised by some of the implications of a story taking place in a different country and/or different time period. Often, unless you really, really, REALLY think hard about it, the historical details will elude you. Usually, they're unimportant to the story as a whole. Why should you care then? BECAUSE THE FACTS, IF YOU REALIZE THEM, WILL BLOW YOUR MIND.
There is no better example of this than the age of characters. How often do we actually know the exact age of characters in any given story? It's very rare that it comes up if it's not a relevant plot point. However, even if it's not relevant to the plot, it can be relevant to how you view the message of the story.
In the literary world, my favorite example is Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet". It is a perfect example because it is possibly the most well-known and the most poorly-interpreted story of all time.
Here's why: It's not a love story. Not really. Or it is, but the romance isn't the point. It's right there in the first lines.
"Two households, both alike in dignity, In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean."
If the play were a research paper, this would be the thesis. The family feud is clearly the focus. As for the romance…well…
There are two major problems I have with the "romance" in Romeo and Juliet. First, Shakespeare makes it a point to show you that Romeo is fickle. At the beginning of the play, he's talking about how he's completely in love...with a girl named Rosalyn. He has a beautiful speech about how amazing she is, and then completely forgets about her when he meets Juliet. Second, given the time period...Juliet is most likely around 13 years old.
Do you know any 13 year olds? Talked to any Middle Schoolers lately? What would you say if they told you they had fallen in love and they couldn't live without their boyfriend/girlfriend?
Yeah, I'd laugh too.
The point is that it changes the meaning of the story. Drastically.
Ok, enough Shakespeare.
Disney movies are a particular love of mine. I love children's movies. They're bright and happy, full of color and music. Plus, I become amused at how grim tales become happily-ever-after Disney moments. Anyone who's read a real fairy tale has to find amusement in seeing how Disney skims past the less kid-friendly parts.
Historical context can tell us that Jasmine is likely around 13. She's pre-pubescent certainly, given her outfit. Yet she certainly has way more curves than a girl that age should. Disney makes their characters look older to ease the minds of the viewing audience.
Sure, this could just be a case of Disney not really caring for accuracy. One movie, however, makes me think otherwise. One movie has a character whose age is actually stated, although the implications are buried carefully, and is shown to look much older than he should.
The Beast, of "Beauty and the Beast", is 20 years old during the film. We know this. His enchanted rose is supposed to die on his 21st birthday, which is apparently at the end of the film. However, there is one more solid mention of time in the film.
One day, I was looking up the lyrics to "Be Our Guest" when I noticed a line I'd never paid attention to before. Lumiere is talking about how miserable they've been while under the curse and about how bored and how lonely they had been before she arrived.
During his dramatic little monologue, he tells Belle how long they'd been under the curse. "Ten years we have been rusting!" he claims.
Ten years. Ten years?! That would make the Beast ten or eleven when that enchantress cursed him. Ten! EVERYONE is selfish at ten years old. Kinda harsh. I thought maybe he wasn't aging or something, but the rose is set to die on his 21st birthday.
So he was ten. That's for certain. The portrait in his wing and the stained glass prologue don't show a ten year old though. They show him as he appears at the age of 21, when he transforms back from the Beast. Obviously, they couldn't show a ten year old being cursed...so they show a young man being cursed and hope nobody notices.
And be honest, did you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)