Disney Movies

This weeks discussion about Disney Movies was an interesting one for me. I have always been an avid Disney viewer, and as a child I loved them. My parents allowed me to watch them, but preferred that I did not just because I wasn't allowed to watch barely any TV or movies growing up. Now, however, I have mixed feelings about these movies and showing them to my children one day. I have such wonderful memories as a child of watching the movies that I want my children to be able to experience the same movies, however, as an informed adult I am not sure I want to support a company that produces racism, sexism, violence and many other politically incorrect issues. On the other hand, however, I think Disney has a positive influence on children in the way that they create dreams and aspirations for young boys and especially girls. For example, I wanted to be a princess or a fairy like Tinker Bell or Belle more than anything when I was little. This dream allowed me to use my imagination and pretend which is an important part of childhood development. The negativity in these movies, however, may outweigh the positive aspects of the films. Perhaps the most offensive and ignorant part of any movie is simply the size and body image of Ariel in "The Little Mermaid". Her figure is completely unrealistic and the it also gives the message that if a girl is beautiful, skinny, and has large breasts and long flowing hair she can date any man no matter what her personality may be. Studies have shown unfortunately that body images such as Ariel largely impact girls' views of their bodies as teenagers and young adults. I think Ariel can be related similarly to the Bratz dolls or Barbie dolls. The link above shows Bratz dolls. These dolls are similar to Barbies and they portray unrealistic and unhealthy body size and proportion to young girls. Unfortunately, body image is one of the few serious psychological issues that sticks with females from a young age. Ariel and the other Disney Princess' bodies are unhealthy, unrealistic and should not be allowed. Even though I loved Disney movies as a child and would not give up watching them even because of all the politically incorrect and inappropriate messages I still think they are valuable to children's imagination and fantasies. I will have to grapple with the idea of showing them to my children, and it will be a difficult decision

http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2008/05/20/bratz_wideweb__470x302,0.jpg

Dreams and Hopes for what?

This week's discussion gave me a really new perspective about Disney movies. I was not a big fan of Disney movies nor did they mean a lot to me (due to my cultural backgrounds), so I have never condsidered them with critical eyes. However, I found that I also had a critical opinion about the movies, though I did not notice before the class.

Korean dramas are popular to not only Korean people, but also people in other Asian countries, such as Chinese or Japanese. Korean dramas are good, but the dramas are usaully criticized because of their limited plots; all the dramas have similar plot structures. There is a term 'Cinderella story'. This term refers to the Korean dramas, usaully used when criticizing them. The plots of drama are very similar to Cinderella; a tender-hearted but poor woman meets and falls in love with "the prince", who is not only good-looking, but has a lot of money. Although people around the woman harrass her, and intervene the love between the woman and "the prince", the drama ends up with a happy ending.

I don't really like this kind of drama. It is far from the reality nor do they give any fruitful lessons. They make people (usually women) "build a castle in the air", and make people hard to adjust to reality. Also, those dramas make women dependent considerably on men, which is a really retrogressive behavior that do not fit to women in 21st century. Disney movies are usually considered as 'movies which give dreams and hopes to childeren'. But Dreams and Hopes for what? One day, "the prince" will come up and fall in love with you? And your life will be happy ever after?

↑one of the most typical kinds of 'Cinderella story' drama in Korea

Schwarzenegger and the Sci-Fi Flick

The 1990 movie Total Recall starring Arnold Schwarzenegger is ridiculously and hilariously awesome. In reading Judith Hess Wright's "Genre Films and the Status Quo," I noticed that almost every aspect of the typical Sci-Fi genre film fits Total Recall. The movie, in it's ridiculousness, includes a woman with three breasts, deformed midgets, and a human colony on Mars enclosed with--you guessed it--the inevitable glass dome. The "governator" of fame certainly upholds his reputation in this film: the unmistakable accent, the constant fighting, and the brawn are all manifested in Total Recall.

Wright explains that three characteristics always surface in the typical genre film. According to Wright, "these films never deal directly with present social and political problems; second, all of them are set in the nonpresent" (41-42). Total Recall certainly does not address any societal issues--except the 1990s-ish fear of the "outsider" (i.e. Communists) which probably spurred the production of the film. The movie also takes place far in the future, during a time in which automated taxis and (freight box sized?) computers dominate the cities. Wright continues: "Third, the society in which the action takes place is very simple and does not function as a dramatic force in the films--it exists as a backdrop against which the few actors work out the central problem the film presents" (42). Although the film takes place in a modern US city and a supposed human colony on Mars, most of the film concentrates on the battle between good and evil and the subsequent fight scenes--not on a complex "new world."

Wright begins to conclude the article with another important aspect of the Sci-Fi flick: "The science fiction film...may be seen as a dramatization of those fears and desires aroused by the cold war...Confronted by 'the other,' according to these films, there is only one possible response. We must use every scientific means at our disposal to destroy the invader" (46). In the film, Schwarzenegger certainly uses any means of scientific technology to destroy his nemesis. From blowing up the glass domed Mars colony to miraculously supplying Mars with oxygen with a monstrous and metal fan-type device, Schwarzenegger runs wild in Total Recall. Instead of the endless and ridiculously unrealistic fight scenes that dominate the movie, it's really too bad we don't see the woman with multiple breasts longer than two minutes.

Projecting Bad Self Esteem

After reading “Are Disney Movies Good for Your Kids?” by Henry A. Giroux, I now see Disney movies in a new light. As the article and our class discussion point out, Disney productions are teaching machines; by watching these films children learn “roles, values, and ideals” (Giroux 53). Disney tries to portray itself as a model of civic responsibility by providing scholarships, internships, and educational programs for disadvantaged students (Giroux 54).  The article criticizes some of the messages that are transmitted to children via Disney movies.  Both the article and our classroom discussion made me think of another well known American company recently criticized for its portrayal of women to the American public-namely Polo Ralph Lauren Polo Corporation.

            Ralph Lauren is busy projecting a very clean cut and wholesome image, as is Disney; after all, the Ralph Lauren Polo Company was chosen as the official outfitter of the 2010 Olympics.  In fact, the world of Ralph Lauren can be seen as a kind of Disney production for adults. Ralph Lauren products offer consumers the chance to buy into a fantasy world in which aristocratic looking men and women wear stylish clothing. Just like Disney, the company is concerned with having an image of civic responsibility and charitable behavior. The Ralph Lauren website offers a Haiti Relief T-shirt for sale, advertising that one hundred percent of the proceeds from buying this t-shirt will be donated to Haiti Relief.  Also, just as Disney, Ralph Lauren is unwittingly reinforcing negative values in its viewing public. Ralph Lauren’s transmission of negative cultural values consists of fostering unrealistic expectations in women through its advertisements, specifically by digitally altering models’ photographs and making the models unnaturally thin. This is damaging to people’s self image because research has shown that images of models do impact people’s self esteem.  

            On October 10^th, 2009, Ralph Lauren Corporation apologized for digitally retouching an already thin model’s waist to make her head look larger than her waist and for reinforcing a distorted body image in young girls.  The apology came after the ad caused a public outcry against the company.  Critics of Ralph Lauren’s advertising included blogs, such as Dr. Eye Candy, and documentary filmmaker Darryl Roberts (America the Beautiful) called for a boycott against Ralph Lauren products.  They threatened to pick three of Lauren’s biggest stores and boycott them by taking young girls with eating disorders to the stores to explain to shoppers how Lauren’s advertising affected them. Digitally altered photograph, like that of Polo model Filippa Hamilton, are felt to have a damaging influence by contributing to the development of eating disorders in young girls with negative self-images. Ironically, after the public apology, Ralph Lauren fired model Filippa Hamilton, the model in the digitally altered ad.

http://www.diet-blog.com/archives/2009/12/14/retouched_models_because_real_is_never_good_enough.php

Disney: "Sex Sells!"

We all know that when we hit a certain point in childhood, we started to be able to catch onto the sexual innuendos that many of our favorite "kid-friendly" movies had. Disney is just as guilty as any other movie company as filling its movies with these below the surface jokes and comments. I remember watching "The Cat and the Hat" in movie theatres, and at one point in the movie the Cat gets hit in the face with a hoe covered in mud, and he says, "Dirty hoe" right at the screen, as if he's letting us know that if we're in on the joke, we should be proud. Aren't parents that see these movies upset when they see this blatant sexual comment? And are movie companies trying to get younger kids to interpret the words as sexual comments by consistently using them throughout movies?

Disney and other movie companies like Pixar portray the image of creating kid friendly movies that parents should be fine letting their young children see. But, under the surface they are promoting the "sex sells" ideal that is usually marketed to young adults. Perhaps these movie companies are using these under-the-table tactics to bring in older viewers who would have no interest in seeing the movies otherwise. But, their attempts at using sex is often very obvious and they may risk offending some viewers. For example, in "The Lion King" the animators even write out the word sex in dust in the night sky.

Disney and other movie companies clearly have some ulterior motives when releasing their movies with their sexual innuendos to be seen by young children, but only they know why they they leave sexual interpretations possible from the content of their movies.

Not Everyone is Disney Princesses

It seems as though the Disney Princesses are present in every little girls' lives. I remember dancing in front of the TV to "Prince Ali" as a young girl with my Jasmine costume dreaming of being like her. Although there have been numerous Disney classic movies with the leading roles being women, there are only a handful of those women that are considered "princesses." There has been Belle, Jasmine, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Pocahontas, Mulan, Tiana, Snow White, Cinderella, etc yet the princess roles seem to taken on by only the white rather American looking women. When you search "Disney Princesses" this is what appears...

The Disney corporation has refused to add the multi-cultural characters to the group of Disney Princesses causing an uproar among the minorities. There has been a history of racism within the Disney's history. Making the villains or the entertaining characters have strong foreign or African American accents has not helped Disney with its popularity among all audiences. Is Disney that feel-good company you always trusted now?

Celebrate! (Or Pay the Consequences)

As mentioned in the Giroux article, Disney has created a master-planned community known as Celebration that it hopes will serve as a model for future communities.

Two summers ago, I stayed with my friend at her house in this Celebration community, and couldn't decide if the forced pleasantness, from compulsory grooming of one's front lawn (you receive a letter from the community if your grass is too long, your flowers are wilting, or your lawn just isn't looking quite as splendid as is required) to a nearly identical model for each house (with a front porch on every estate calling upon back-in-the-day-when-we-all-just-sat-on-the-deck-and-talked-like-a-real-family nostalgia,) was endearing or nauseating.

On one hand, like many of those who disagreed with the Disney article, I felt a lovable charm about the community, with its freshly cut grass and "downtown" area, which featured everything from great restaurants to a movie theater to an antique-looking Bank of America. Eventually, however, the scene felt a little too forced. I felt like I was in the movie Pleasantville, in which all members of the community agree on an implicit pact to be happy and exhibit continual well-being. There was even a slight scent of communism in the air, as it appeared that "the community" decided on everything from the color of one's house to the chairs on the front stoop.

Soon, I felt myself questioning the very magic of Disney, the meticulously constructed allure of the Magic Kingdom. For while the corporation works wonders in perpetuating its untouchably angelic image, Disney is, at the end of the day, a business that benefits financially from its purity. Not only does its reputation attract families, its very character suggests that, in buying Disney products, visiting Disney parks, or taking part in the Disney megaworld in some way, shape, or form, the individual is spreading the magic that IS Disney. To buy a Mickey Mouse shirt, the company implies, is to spread the (Protestant?) purity of the empire. To visit Epcot is to merge with this innocence and, in doing so, become a better person. Indeed, to commingle with Disney on any cultural level, it appears, is to benefit oneself and the world at large.

There seems to be more riding on Donald Duck than we may have thought.