Disney should clean up their movies??

http://entertainment.time.com/2009/12/09/top-10-disney-controversies/slide/bambi/

I found an article written back in 2009 on Time Entertainment online, regarding the top 10 Disney controversies.  Coming in at number 7, Bambi (1942) was apparently a highly controversial film when it came out back in 1942.  For what you might ask?

TEACHING CHILDREN LIFE LESSONS!!!

Tears beyond number have been spilled by impressionable tots when Bambi’s mother is gunned down by a hunter and when Simba is orphaned during a stampede in The Lion King. These gruesome scenes have caused some outrage: a bill proposed by a British industry-watchdog group in 2004 could have banned Bambi for causing children “psychological harm,”

Stop, just stop. "Gruesome" and "psychological harm" should not be used to describe these scenes.  Yes, sad.  Yes, a little violent.  But kids will grow to see worse, if they haven't already, especially in 21st century society.  Disney has been under constant fire for sugar-coating their films to the point of being unrealistic. The times when Disney tries to make a film that teaches perserverance in the face of adversity, even the death of a loved one, they get criticized. Jeez, now I see why Disney so carefully makes the decisons they make. They can never win. 

Both Bambi and The Lion King (1994) are considered to be some of the most well-rounded and beloved films made by Disney.  People of any age emphathize with the characters who go through such traumatic events, and love them more for it.  Also, parents know what the movie entails and if they are not ready to take that step with their children, it is their responsibility not to show the film to them. We should not stifle the few times that Disney makes a movie with valuable life-lessons and real-world problems (no#princessprobs). Embrace it, hail it for taking on some more mature content!  As we know, Disney has its hands in multiple arenas anyway.

Good Ratings for New Film Saving Mr. Banks (sorry it won't let me italicize)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/12/06/review-saving-mr-banks-exposes-strengths-limits-of-disney-magic/?partner=yahootix


In Scott Mendelson's recent review, "'Saving Mr. Banks' Deconstructs Disney Magic," it seems like Disney might have gotten it right with the retelling of their own creator and god-like figure, Walt Disney.  Apparently it's got Oscar buzz, though that may seem difficult to believe when looking at the current contenders like 12 Years a Slave (2013) or Gravity (2013).  This also comes as a surprise that the film could possibly receive an Oscar in the context of how it's been marketed.  Disney has been selling it as a "feel-good" film, somewhere along the lines of Marley and Me (2008) or Meet the Fockers (2004). However, the film includes many not-so-terrific parts of Walt's past and family life. One would think that Disney would want to market it as a potential Oscar Award-winning film, especially because the actor line-up is incredible (Tom Hanks, Emma Thompson, Paul Giammati, Collin Farrell to drop some names).  Man, old habits die hard.  Disney just can't get out of that "family-friendly" mentality, can they?  Maybe they believe it will bring in classic Disney fans and families gathering around for a good holiday movie.

As it goes for the actual portrayal of Walt, Disney seems to present a pretty balanced view of him.

The Disney-produced film doesn’t deal with the darker sides of Mr. Walt Disney, but nor does it lionize him or make him anything more than a shrewd creator of mass-market entertainment. And while the film wallows in the alleged fun of the Disney properties and Disney characters, it also is all-too-willing to view them from a disorienting, or more shockingly, mundane angle. 

For whatever reason, this is not very surprising that Disney is taking this step.  Disney has taken progressive steps in the decade or so that constitute a major change in how they are running things.  We have a change in the archetypal princess represented by Princesses Anna and Merida (they're trying).  We also see some pretty cool stuff in production after teaming up with Pixar and more recently, Marvel.  Disney is taking a turn for the better. Now it's time to present a more realistic picture of ole' Walt.  It seems like people can handle it.

Disney Hunks

There was a recent article on buzzfeed rating some Disney hunks via the new lulu app which lets women anonymously rate men using funny hashtags.  On a scale from 1-10 guess who was rated the highest?



YAAAYYY!!!! I tend to be a fan of Hercules myself.  He is a really sincere guy, wants to help people, and, let's face it, a hottie with a body.



EEhhh, I could take it or leave it.



I would tend to agree with this high approval rating.  However, he seems to be a tad bit serious.  I like a guy with a little humor.

So...what's the point of this?  Well, with the article we read, "Post-princess Models of Gender: The New Man in Disney/Pixar," it pointed to a lot of good qualites exhibited by the men in Cars (2006), The Incredibles (2004), and the Toy Story (1995) franchise.  They are no longer portrayed as "super macho," but exhibit sincere qualities that men go through but feel they cannot discuss.  Women highly value these qualities as you can see from the hashtag ratings (respect women, trustworthy, strong work ethic).

Buzz Lightyear learns the true meaning of authority and strength; that his physical strength and cool "flying abilities" do not make him a man.  Mr. Incredible's "brute force" actually makes him a clumsy leader.  Lightning is emasculated at one point when he has to perform community service under the leadership of Bessie, a female character.  In the end these characters emerge as new men, men who have been demasculated in some sort of way, and now understand the true sense of being a man.  It is not the classic "prince-charming" archetype Disney perpetuated before with a fit body and debonair smile, ready to "rescue" a needy woman.  These men have flaws, learn to accept them, and find comfort in their own skin, just as it should be.

The Sexualization of Disney Princesses

      Introducing Kidagakash Nedakh (a.k.a. "Kida"), princess of the grand underwater island of Atlantis!!! Is she a Disney Princess?? you may wonder.  Well, technically, no.  She hasn't quite been inducted.  However, is she still important to our discussion of the representation of female protagonists in Disney films?  Certainly!!
      Kida has some pretty great qualities that, unfortunately, do not get much recognition from mainstream Disney fans.  For one, Kida has a full name, something that oddly enough, the other Disney princesses don't have.
ARIEL...
BELLE...
RAPUNZEL...
POCAHONTAS...
(you get the picture)
Hhhmmm.  Yes, it is a fact that women come from families (from which they inherit last names) before their prince charmings are ever in the picture.
Anyway, Kida is pretty self-sufficient too.  She can kick some serious butt!!

And climb things.

And yet...
Why does she look soo sexual???
If we look back at the first picture, we see fan art done for Kida.  The artist chooses to accentuate the smallness of her midsection and the largeness of her thighs, butt, and hips.  The fan would not have gotten this idea if it wasn't for how Kida was subliminally seen in the movie in the first place.  Her very costume is designed to emphasize her hourglass figure.  It is especially worrisome when we consider the fact that she is physically active throughout the movie, climbing trees, jumping, and at one point even fighting on top of a male character, legs spread and all.
What message was Disney trying to send in their portrayal of Kida?  Yes, it's great that she is resourceful, independent, a leader, and willing to fight her own battles.  But this also causes women who are emotionally and mentally strong to be physically sexualized.  There seems to be some positive correlation in Disney films between independent women and how sexual they appear.
Example 1: Pocahontas.  She is "one with the earth," and similar to Kida, climbs, jumps, and runs a lot.  She follows the "beat to her own drum" so-to-speak.  However, her body figure emphasizes an hourglass shape and athletic build.
Example 2: Esmerelda.  She is the object of many men's desires, including Frollo, the very one who tries to stomp out the gypsy population. Her neckline is lower than the other princesses and her dancing is erotic at times.
Example 3: Ariel.  Although we know her tale ends in marriage and she sacrifices her own beautiful voice to be with a man, she still exhibits some elements of independence and stubborness that could qualify her as a mermaid whose desires often go against those of her people.  Her costume consists of a small seashell bra and a mermaid fin.
Example 3: Jasmine.  Again, she may not be the greatest example of defying Disney's "happily-ever-after" endings, but she is still defiant, wanting more for herself than her culture wants for her.  Jasmine's costume shows off her midsection as well as her shoulders.
These sexualizations could also be attributed to some racial stereotypes as well, but we see that a correlation exists.
Maybe this is why, despite what people say about Merida's "young" or "tomboyish" features, she may be a good representation of feminism.  She is not sexualized in any way, shape, or form.  Whether or not that is a step in the right direction is up to interpretation.

Warning!!! Potentially Disturbing Original Myths Retold by Disney

Here is a link to a video highlighting some of the differences between original fairytales and Disney's adaptations. I thought some of them were quite disturbing, especially Sleeping Beauty!!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/video/chrisreinacher/disney-stories-that-will-ruin-your-childhood

To add to the conversation that Disney uses the same formula for every film, there are various ways Disney could have adapted the original tales to be more suitable for kids. For instance, with The Little Mermaid, they could have ended the film with Ariel staying single, representing female empowerment. On the other hand, it is important to take note of the original tale's themes. The original Ariel kills herself after "her man" chooses another woman. Interestingly enough, many people who criticize Disney's creative decisions fail to mention the tales from which they are adapted. When compared to the original, The Little Mermaid seems to take the cake, although they could have portrayed Ariel as a wee bit more strong and independent. 
When it comes to Peter Pan, I'm not sure how much insight I can bring to the table on its underlying themes. It's been a while since I've seen the film and the only thing I seem to remember is its main message: Growing up isn't a bad thing if you use it as a time for growth and maturity. This seems to be a pretty positive message although I have failed to look at the film more in depthly. When compared to its original counterpart, it seems to promote more positive values. In the original Peter Pan, Peter kills all the Lost Boys who he suspects of growing older, while he remains the only boy in Neverland to actually stay a boy. The original tale seems to look down on aging, a theme I might suspect from a 21st-Century film instead. Hence, Disney's adaptation, comparitively speaking, promotes a more positive message.
Disney has also been criticized for its adaptation of Pocahontas, citing the fact that it depicts the conflict between Native Americans and Europeans in a more lighthearted way than what really occurred. Although I believe it attempted to demonstrate love transcending race or culture, it definitely put a spin on the classic Disney tale of romance. Some say that Smith and Pocahontas don't end up together because they are interracial, but they probably would have criticized Disney for having Pocahontas disown her own race if she had left with John Smith. Personally, I think by structuring the message of acceptance transcending race through the relationship between the two protagonists, Disney set itself up for criticism from either side of the argument. No matter how they decided to end the film, it would have been the object of criticism due to the fact that historically, Pocahontas is captured and forced to move to England against her will. It is the romanticization of Pocahontas' relationship with her White capture that is really the problem. 
Lastly, the video displayed the difference between the two versions of Sleeping Beauty. Many may criticize Princess Aurora for needing a man to kiss her in order for her to awaken from her spell. However, in the original tale, Sleeping Beauty is raped in her sleep and awoken 9 months later by, can you guess? Childbirth. How disgusting!!! Disney obviously takes the cake when it comes to appropriateness on this one.
By these observations I'm not saying that Disney gets away scot-free. However, it is important to note that many of Disney's adaptations came from somewhere, and were often times better than the original tales. The analysis of these tales should be incorporated in Disney criticism much more often than they are. With this said however, Disney still has the creative license to adapt these tales using even more progressive, 21st-century themes.

Joe Jonas Dishes on Being a Disney Star

http://www.vulture.com/2013/11/joe-jonas-talks-jonas-brothers.html

          Joe Jonas has recently poured his heart out regarding his life as a Disney star in the article "Joe Jonas: My Life As a Jonas Brother."  In the article Joe discusses the many ways in which Disney carefully marketed and limited his creativity as a musician. As a child the Jonas family was very into music and Nick was the first to pursue a career in the industry after being discovered in a hair salon.  Soon enough, the other two brothers joined Nick.  When Joe was 15, Disney picked up the band and they were thrown into the spotlight.
         Joe goes on to say how "Disney is great at creating fame," and how that fame comes with a huge responsibility to maintain the kid-friendly persona.  For example, when the Vanessa Hudgens nude photo scandal came out the execs told the brothers that they were so happy that they hadn't made a huge mistake like that, which put increased pressure on the boys to be perfect. Disney even trained the brothers on how to answer questions in interviews by assigning certain brothers to certain topics.  In the media, they had to keep such a squeaky-clean image that he was once pummeled in the tabloids for politely telling a fan that he wasn't up to taking a picture with him.
        Also, the promise-rings the boys chose to wear were blown out of proportion and further limited their public image.  Although it was a stance the boys had taken from early on in their lives, the media made it seem as though it was a fairly recent move the boys had made and published information about it everywhere.  Therefore, when Joe was older he felt the need to hide his relationships for the sake of the Disney brand.  He even smoked weed and drank underage, behaviors not uncommon to teens.  Yet, the pressure finally got to him and the rest of his brothers that they split up.  Even after the spit, Joe tried his hand at a solo career.  When Lil Wayne was on one of his tracks and said the "b" word, Joe's album got a parental advisory label, which Joe feared would alienate many of his fans.


       All this goes to show that Disney's level of control reaches beyond its films and into the lives of the ones they work with.  Disney took a group of brothers who wanted to write their own music, gave them music to sing instead, and skyrocketed them into stardom.  Disney controlled their image by telling them what to say, how to act, and what activities were and weren't acceptable to be involved in.  Honestly, this is understandable.  Disney has an image that must be maintained, and if they have a bunch of "crazy" kids running around, Disney will no longer be seen as a positive role model for kids.  Also, people should have a better idea of what they are getting themselves into when they sign onto working with Disney (are they selling a piece of their soul for the fame that Disney will undeniably bring them?).  They should be more knowledgeable on what is involved in their contract.
        Who knows, maybe back in Mickey Mouse Clubhouse days Disney's monopoly over the image of its stars may not have been as well-known.  At the end of the day however, Joe's testimony sheds a lot of light on the process of becoming a famous Disney star.  Hopefully it's something more people will take into consideration when signing a contract to work with the company.

Introduction

        As a child I turned to Disney for tales of fantasy and excitement that snagged me from my bedroom floor and delivered me on the front steps of The Beast's Castle, the hills of Pocahontas' indigenous land, and the plank of Captain Hook's pirate ship.  I always identified with the least "traditional" story, the one where the princess isn't a damsel-in-distress, the men aren't all tall hunks with soothing voices, and the characters don't all look and speak the same.  In my opinion, the best Disney movies are the ones that reflect the changes in society during the time period in which the movies were made (although I have my personal issues with Tiana, the first black Disney princess).  For that reason, Mulan (a woman who fights her OWN battles), Pocahontas (a mixed-race relationship), Anastasia (loosely based on history?), as well as non-princess Disney films like Pinnochio, show the evolution of the Disney film.  However, it is noteworthy to talk about the underlying messages in Disney.  It has become such a multi-billion dollar corporation and spans the globe.  Simply visit any Disney park and see the abundance of diversity surrounding you!  It makes you wonder how foreigners see American society.  It makes sense that their perspective on race relations or gender diversity could be influenced by the portrayal of Disney's character archetypes.  This is what interested me about the class, breaking down common stereotypes and patterns constantly seen in Disney films, as well as the changes Disney films have gone through since the beginning of the 20th century.