That's all folks! Concluding Blog Post

What I knew before I ever stepped foot into Decoding Disney was that evil is complicated. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but good and evil are too.

If you asked me to define evil, I couldn’t. I could give you a list of things that I believe are bad.

For example: racism, murder, sexism, broccoli, stealing, lying.

However, doing bad things doesn’t make a person evil. You lie as a parent and tell your children that Santa is real—not because you’re malicious, but because you just want them to be happy and excited for Christmas. We slaughter animals for our food everyday—that’s murder—but I enjoy a good steak or chicken tender every now and then. Poor people need food to survive and our country is too focused on wars to provide proper support for them—so if they steal, so be it. Good and bad aren’t so black and white.

So, I think if you asked me to define evil, I would say that evil is doing bad things with the intent of causing harm or havoc to someone for selfish reasons. This is still a subjective definition because someone could easily look at it and say that poor people are stealing food for themselves and claim that’s selfish. By this definition, I’m sure more than a few of our presidents would be considered evil—especially George Bush who started an entire war in the Middle East under the lie of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in order to gain control of their oil supply. Wars are bad; He intended to do harm to those countries; Oil for America is a selfish reason. Therefore, George Bush is evil. However, I’m sure there’s plenty who would disagree with this statement.

This course has exposed me to more than just evil, it’s exposed me to the real Disney.

Before this course, I never thought of Disney as a business. Disney was a family-friendly, innocent source of entertainment. Disney World was the happiest place on earth. Disney made sense to me. Now I know that Disney is a multi-billion dollar corporation and it should be treated like one. Disney must be criticized. As Henry Giroux argued, we can’t give Disney a pass simply because it makes children movies. These children films are more than just harmless entertainment; they are messages. They are ideas that children conform to.

Disney’s films contain messages of: race, class, gender, sexuality, and history. Many of these messages aren’t positive. They’re corrupt. Disney was founded in a time when white, middle-class males were the most powerful group of people. And since that time, Disney has tailored many of its films towards that group of people. Women cook, clean, sing, and marry wealthy men. I’m sorry—white women do that. And that’s all they do. Transgendered men and women are evil, ugly, and disgusting, and they ALWAYS LOSE. Orients just want to be Americans. They wish they had capitalism and democracy, because their cultures and traditions are old and broken. Society is mostly rich people, and if there are poor people they’re happy to be working class or poor. If you’re really good, you can be rich. But if you’re really bad, you’ll end up poor.

These are only a few of the messages that I’ve learned to pay attention to within Disney’s children’s films. I’m not trying to sound cynical here. I think Disney is great. I’d choose Disney over many of the other major children’s entertainment corporations, but I think Disney is problematic. You know what happens when someone greats KNOWS that they’re great? They take advantage of it. Disney has taken advantage of the fact that they’re practically untouchable. It’s almost impossible for Disney to fail because they’ve grown such a wide fan-base—and they know it. If we want to knock Disney off their high horse, we must demand better. I’m not saying that we should boycott Disney. I’m saying that, after this course, I know that when my children watch Disney films I’m going to be right there with them asking questions and teaching lessons that counter the prejudice found in those films. And if I so find it necessary, I might even publish an article on my critiques of a film because Disney isn’t innocent, and I will hold them accountable. If I haven’t learned anything else, I’ve learned that.

Wreck-it-Ralph response blog

"Just because you're the bad guy doesn't mean you're a bad guy." This is such a moving statement. Somebody has to take the crap and be the bad guy so that the story can continue. (Hence the game going out of order once Ralph left). However, it's a rare occasion that villainy is separate from bad character. My theory is that after thirty years of being the bad guy, Ralph is just washed up and is looking for a change; he's going through a midlife crisis.

"It's not about labels. Bad or good. It's about loving yourself." This encouragement only works when it's the bad guys that want to be good. I wouldn't suggest telling evil villains to "love themselves" no matter what label people gives them.

"Bad guys don't win medals." Wreck it Ralph really makes me feel sad, because even the really good villains (even though most villains fail miserably) don't get rewarded. They get thrown into the shadows and hated for being really good at being bad.

"Heroes have to make the tough choices." This is true, but heroes also have to know who to trust and gather the information to make the best decision. Ralph believed the king and almost destroyed Vanellope for good when he was trying to help her.

Also, not that I'm in support of conforming to society and gender norms, but Felix is like two feet tall and his new wife is like 6 feet tall at least. Is that not strange to anyone else?? And he embodies everything happy and cheerful, and she's dark and angry. Opposites attract, sure, but they don't get married.

At the end of this movie I really had no idea what message o was supposed to gather. I found a different one from each perspective.

Ralph learned that it's not your situation that determines your happiness; it's how you look at it.

The community learned that you need the bad guy just as much as you need the hero, and the bad guy isn't always a 'bad guy', he's just doing his job.  The learned to value Ralph and his differences.

Vanellope learned to appreciate who she was, glitch and all, and use her differences to her advantage. She also embodies a message that a girl doesn't have to be a princess and wear a dress to be powerful. All it takes is the mindset. She shows girls to do exactly what you love and kick ass at it.

The most valuable message that Disney gave is that you are not what you achieve. A person is so much bigger than the medals that they win. They might look pretty and shiny, but they don't make or break a person. Sometimes the good guy comes in last place, and that's okay because he's still good. "I'll always be bad and that's okay."

As a viewer, I think that this movie was a good one. But, I was also bored before it ended. I'm pretty exhausted with watching children's films.

'Black princess' is not good enough

I almost completely shaken by how naïve and oblivious I have been when consuming the content of Disney movies. I was excited for Princess and the Frog; I loved the movie and the soundtrack. The idea of a black princess made me excited as I'm sure it did for many black girls. However, Disney did this movie wrong... so. very. wrong.

First of all, the setting is just bad.
Time: 1920's
Place: New Orleans, Louisiana
Problem: 1920's America was a RACIST AMERICA. Don't get me wrong, America is still racist. Well, let me be more specific: 1920's America was a segregated America, especially within the South. Louisiana, being in the south, I can guarantee was no a pretty place for many black Americans-- including Tiana and her mother. So help me understand why Disney would DARE to place a CHILDREN'S movie that in that setting? Disney took segregated, racist America and made it colorful and full of soulful jazz music. Disney got the culture right in good ole' Creole New Orleans, but they didn't get the society right. And how could they? How do you make a children's movie about racism and segregation?
Answer: YOU DON'T. YOU LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE. YOU STOP TRYING TO TELL YOUR OWN PRIVILEGED STORY OF OTHERS PEOPLE HISTORICAL STRUGGLES. And yes, I mean privileged. It is a privilege to be able to play with and remove the struggles of an entire RACE for your own motives and gains.

Second, the implicit relations to radical organizations and obvious racists is, again, just bad.

Examples: Duke's place
Problem: David Duke (see the relation) is a white nationalist and a former leader of the Klu Klux Klan. He might've been the former Republican state representative of Louisiana, but that becomes irrelevant in light of everything else he stood for. And on top of naming the place after him, Tiana works there-- as a waitress. So not only is the building named after a man that supports white separatism, but the black protagonist of the movie WORKS FOR HIM. So, Disney, are you telling me that she's his subordinate? Because it sure looks like it. It sure looks like Disney is showing a strong racial structure.

Third, giving black women typical "mammy" jobs is... say it with me now... just bad.

Jobs: Waitress, seamstress/nanny
Problem: "Perhaps a little woman of your...background, is better off where you are." Thanks for acknowledging the rich, white men of 1920's New Orleans were prejudice towards a poor, black woman, but that's inappropriate in a Disney movie. Especially a Disney movie that little black girls are hoping to identify with. THANK YOU for placing that quote smack dab in the middle of crushed dreams of little black girls after they waited so long to be represented. You did a great job of telling them that their "background" affords them nothing but a job as a waitress. OR even better, their skills are best put to use tending to the needs of a young white girl in the home of the richest white man they can find. While I appreciate that this reflects the times ACCURATELY, I'm just concerned about why this is the part that Disney decided to get right? Isn't Disney supposed to build big dreams for its child audience? How come the little black girls don't get that?

Lastly, the happy ever after at the end is good, but bad.

Ending: Tiana is willing to give up her dreams, remain a frog, and marry prince Naveen. She marries him, they become humans again, and she gets her restaurant.
Problem: This isn't even problematic for it's racial implications. Tiana was the ONE Disney princess without the goal of finding true love and getting married. Her goal was a restaurant that her father had dreamed of opening. She had no desire to fight for a prince. And yet, Disney bases her happy ending and accomplishment of her dream on her marriage to Prince Naveen. He is her stepping-stone. He gets her the reward needed to fund her restaurant, and, in connection to race, he raises her from the pitifully low stature as a black woman, because he's technically an Indian man.

Let's acknowledge the fact that I love Tiana for being an independent, black woman. I love her for having dreams and goals that didn't surround a man. But I hate Disney for making this movie so terribly wrong. Why can't Disney learn to leave well enough alone? They could've just put the black princess in a castle and let her be courted like everyone else, but they can't help being the intrusive, destructive company that they are.

For more information on Disney's P&F, feel free to read the article that sparked this response: "The Strange Case of The Princess and the Frog: Passing and the Elision of Race" by Ajay Gehlawat.

Response to Davis' "Evil Villains"

Personally, I feel Davis' article lacks very much strong argument and bolsters in plain plot summary. However, she makes a few good points.

Davis' point that Tarzan and Clayton are "polar opposites" is so obviously correct that I began wondering if that was the norm for many Disney hero(ine)-villain combos. She states that Tarzan is intelligent, observant, honest, noble, generous, kind, innocent and naïve whereas Clayton is of basic intelligence, oblivious, dishonest, deceitful, and destructive. (whoa, a lot of 'd's' there.) Majority of those characteristics are parallel-- they're complete antonyms of each other. Let's look at other characters combinations.

Ariel and Ursula: Ariel is kind, innocent, naïve, and honest (I mean if you can excuse the sneaking around playing with human objects behind her father's back.) Ursula on the other hand is manipulative, aggressive, and wiser than Ariel.

Aladdin and Jafar: Aladdin is kind, generous, caring, and crafty whereas Jafar is sneaky, selfish, stuck-up, and kind of rude.

Creating this list is proving to be difficult. Outside of Tarzan, I can't think of a single hero(ine) that was honest. While they all might be noble in the end, they all have slips in character that at times make you consider how good they really are. For example: Ariel lies to her father about her human object collection and going on shore to meet a human. Aladdin lies to Jasmine about being a prince, and he lives his life stealing from people in the market. Rapunzel in Tangled runs away from "home" after she promises her mother she wouldn't (albeit her mother is evil and did kidnap her in the first place.) Mulan lies to her family and an entire army of men as she pretends to be soldier in place of her father. It prompts the question of whether these character flaws are intentional-- they ultimately make the character more relatable to the audience-- or if Disney just likes complicating things.

 You might be thinking that I'm being naïve by claiming that Tarzan lacks character flaws, because he obviously disobeys Kerchak's order to stay away from the humans and to keep them away from the tribe, but really Tarzan is a human and not an ape. Being with the humans isn't a flaw; it's finding his identity. Of course he breaks the gorillas' loyalty by leading the humans to them, but he doesn't owe them loyalty when they've been holding his past from him his entire life.

 Moving on, Davis also makes a good point that Clayton is charismatic in order to conceal his ill intentions. However, I believe that's a universal villain trait. The victims rarely expect to be manipulated by them. For example: The sultan doesn't notice that Jafar is using him to try to gain control of Agrabah. Tarzan doesn't notice that Clayton is using him to get to the gorillas and capture them. Simba doesn't realize that Scar is trying to steal the throne and turn everyone against him. Snow White doesn't think anything of the apple that the evil queen gives her. It's a common them that villains are so charismatic that other characters hardly know they're villains. However, I think Tarzan stands out slightly from the norm. In most cases, the audience understands that the villains are in fact evil-- even when the characters don't-- but, as a viewer, I had no idea that Clayton was going to turn against Tarzan and become a villain. That was an entire plot twist for me. Clayton played it so cool that he fooled even the audience and that's rare.

Another interesting point of Davis' article is that while most Disney movie articles end up criticizing the way Disney portrays some part of the movie, Davis' article doesn't really address that. She points out that Tarzan has an American accent even though he lives in Africa and doesn't encounter any humans until Jane, her father, and Clayton-- all of which have British accents. Realistically, Tarzan should've picked up a British accent. Ironically, even the gorillas speak with American accents when it's almost certain that they don't encounter any Americans. Davis actually tries to back up Disney by finding reasons that might support an American accent in Tarzan, which again is rare to find in a Disney article.

Finally, Davis' idea that Tarzan rejects becoming the type of "man" that Clayton defines himself as is iconic. Tarzan and Clayton end up fighting, and Tarzan holds the gun to Clayton's face while Clayton taunts him to "Be a man" and shoot him. First of all, telling anyone to shoot you is just ridiculous in itself, but claiming that shooting someone is what defines their masculinity is WEAK. Clayton's version of masculinity is the exact version that America is trying to progress and run away from. Not only does Clayton embody that fragile masculinity, but so does Kerchak. Kerchak dislikes Tarzan simply because he challenges his authority even though it's unintentional. He rejects Tarzan over and over again, because he doesn't want anyone to take his dominant male spot. This kind of masculinity is what Tarzan rejects by not shooting Clayton and by showing subordination to Kerchak. Tarzan shows real masculinity by showing respect and a distaste for bullying.

Reflective Blog Post 4

Currently attempting to write this blog post while watching the fate of our country unravel. Bare with me.

Has Disney evolved and progressed? Has America? Has anyone?

Disney's films started out as stories of white, upper middle-class couples falling in love. Then they created Aladdin, Pocahontas, and Mulan who represent the Middle East, East Asia, and Native Americans.  Most recently, Disney's given us Princess and the Frog, Brave, and soon-to-be-released Moana which covers African Americans, Europeans, and Pacific Islanders. So, at first glance, Disney appears to have progressed or at least diversified.

However, if we look at Disney's values and messages, do we find any real progression? The first Disney movies all projected the same ideals:

1. Women were best at cooking and cleaning; housewives.
2. Nice women are cheerful and graceful; they should be slim and have small features.
3. The true happiness in a woman's life comes from finding a man to be with.
4. The goal in life is to have a family with one man and woman married.

(We interrupt this program to mention that as of 2:33 AM I am shamed to be an American. No matter how much progress Disney has made or America has made in the last 8 years. Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election has set us back decades.)

In The Little Mermaid and Aladdin, we find some opposition to the patriarchal control.

This was all I could manage for this post. I just can't think about Disney, sorry.

Tarzan Live Blog

If we're being honest, I didn't even know Tarzan was a Disney movie. However, I'm sure the kids loved seeing a baby almost get eaten by a cheetah. Talking Gorillas are kind of freaky though.

Of course the Alpha Male gets the last say on whether or not she's allowed to keep Tarzan. Also, the message that you should do anything to impress people and get friends is hazardous to children everywhere.

"Mom are you sure this water is sanitary" coming from an elephant that lives in the wild is the greatest joke I've ever heard.

I don't understand why Tarzan is confused. He's a human boy and they're apes. Obviously you don't fit in. His desire to be "the best ape ever" is just disturbing and presents a message that you should try hard to fit in and become who other people want you to be. That's not what life is about.

Does this song say "Son of Man?" The Son of Man is Jesus. Are they equating Tarzan to Jesus? I mean, he kind of seems modeled after him, but Jesus didn't live with Apes.

I was going to say the scene between Tarzan and the cheetah seems barbaric, but I realized that's kind of the point since they live in the jungle. Tarzan's body figure is freakishly muscular. I'm almost positive that he doesn't eat well enough to be that toned. This body image is probably the most damaging to its audience because it's nearly unattainable by the average person.

Deforestation is also bad. Why are all three of the explorers matching? And who knew baboons were so territorial?

Are those the beauty and the beast teacups?? I love hidden objects like that!

So Tarzan betrays his people for the girl. If that isn't Classic Disney, I don't know what is. I like that Tarzan challenges authority in the name of co-existing.

Oh NOW, he knows that the gorilla isn't his mother? I mean, let's forget the size and anatomy difference. The picture is what tipped him off.

The fact that the first article of clothing that he ever wears is a suit reflects Disney's middle class American values. On top of the fact that he's being "civilized" by European people that find him.

I was just about to say that the humans weren't villains besides Clayton just being a douche. And then he goes and shows me that he is the villain. Murdering animals for money is a large human evil.

So in the end, the evil man dies (the villain is defeated) and Tarzan receives acceptance and validation from the alpha Male. Everybody wins. And there's the supportive old father that allows for true love to prosper and let's his daughter stay in the jungle.

This story is just strange altogether. So now they're going to lead a Gorilla pack together? I'm just not understanding the logic behind this film at all. And I think it's offensive to Gorillas for them to say "ooo ooo ah ah" and call it speaking their language. I do like Jane's final outfit; although I'm sure the feminist call it subjective and sexual.

Crying over spilled... Gumbo?

Okay, so the Gumbo isn't literally spilled, but I thought the idiom-reference was fitting considering how tedious this topic actually is.


The classic: Don't cry over spilled milk.

I was researching criticisms on the movie The Princess and the Frog and I found an article on Buzzfeed that says Disney created a Kale Gumbo-- directly in accordance with their overwhelming desire to market any and everything that they can from their films-- and apparently, people were offended.

Disney's version of Gumbo.

The article featured snapshots of tweets and Facebook comments that pretty much entailed the black community stating how completely misguiding-- and potentially disgusting-- Kale Gumbo was. Essentially they're correct; in no way is Gumbo a meal that calls for kale as an ingredient. I mean, who even eats kale? Quite honestly, I didn't even know what it was until about a year ago, BUT I'm not going to call for Disney's (theoretical) head on a platter for deciding to make Gumbo out of it.

This is apparently what chopped Kale looks like.

My opinion is that people only called out Disney for its Kale Gumbo for entertainment purposes. Twitter users often times make fun of ridiculous things just to gain thousands of retweets and follows. So, I don't think anyone actually took Disney's gumbo to heart. However, the tweets, Facebook comments, and wall posts were enough to make Disney delete its recipe and try to pretend it never happened. That didn't work, of course, because as our parents beat into our brain-- once it's out there, it's there to stay.

What really gets me about this entire situation is that Disney felt like they had offended people so heavily that they decided to take the recipe down. But seriously... it's just a meal. Technically it's a meal that strongly connected to the culture of New Orleans, and it does have meaning and purpose in that sense, but people make spin-offs of recipes all the time. No big deal. I do see how Kale Gumbo could be offensive. Essentially Gumbo is a staple in the minority community of New Orleans, and to add kale to it would be to basically gentrify it and allow for Upper-middle class, white Americans to consume it. (Because let's be honest, they're the only people who eat kale.)

New Orleans Style Gumbo

Even then, I still don't agree that it's a big enough deal for all the harassment Disney got. I guess that's just a reflection of the oversensitive generation that we live in????