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????

Is banning Disney effective parenting?

So, I read one of my classmates' article choices from Buzzfeed and stumbled upon an interesting idea. Alicia Keys-- a very successful singer/songwriter-- publicly declared that she wouldn't allow her children to watch Disney movies because of the misogynistic ideas within them.

The article reads that Alicia Keys find the classic Disney movies to show women as being only good enough to cook and clean up after men-- for example Snow White-- and she believes that her job as a mom is to instill good, wholesome values in her sons.

Alicia Keys, Husband, and her two sons + stepson

I question her judgment on Disney for multiple reasons.

1) Misogyny is everywhere. If Donald Trump becomes President this week, it'll even be found in the Oval Office. Banning Disney in your home is an ineffective way to keep it from your children. If children aren't exposed to misogyny in the proper setting-- at home watching Disney movies-- then they're more likely to adopt that value. It would've been better for Alicia Keys to advocate for education along with the viewing of Disney movies. Sitting down and watching those misogynistic movies with them and explaining to them that women are capable of more than just cooking and cleaning is an effective way to develop strong values. Shouldn't she be a role model against misogyny anyways? That should be enough that Disney doesn't corrupt her children.

2) The author of the buzzfeed article included a picture of Alicia Keys' son, Egypt, in a Harry Potter costume for Halloween, I'm assuming. I'm noting this because this family is publicly Muslim, and the Harry Potter is a series of movies on sorcery and witchcraft. Majority of religions are against the consumption of such films, because they present opposing views to this belief systems and reflect to more traditional polytheistic beliefs. Christianity and Islam are two of said religions, so the idea that she's against Disney's misogyny, but not Harry Potter's witchcraft is simply beyond me.

I want to be clear that I believe that Disney's classic films are problematic in many ways, especially in today's progressive society, but I believe the answer isn't to ban Disney-- which is nearly impossible since Disney is literally EVERYWHERE. The answer is educate children on what they're consuming hence the use of the term "parental guidance suggested" that's used for films.

Wall-E live blog

Full disclaimer: I don't like this movie, but let's see where it goes.

A city covered in trash doesn't seem too far off in the future for the world right now. However, subjecting these little robots to cleaning it up is futile and also seems like slavery. Does slavery count if there aren't humans going the work?

Was Disney trying to make a political statement about environmental care in this movie? Because if they were... I applaud them.

Is there a Disney movie that doesn't include a love story? Seriously? Robot love is just corny. I'm actually laughing right now. HE BUILT HER A STATUE OF HERSELF. NO ONE DOES THAT FOR ME.

Also, why is the woman robot so angry? She blew up those ships for no reason.

This movie is so strange. I find it annoying how much time is filled in this movie with pointless robot love. Can we move along with the plot?

Oh no!!!! He showed her the plant and now she's.... Dead? He held an umbrella for her and even tried to charge her. This is the kind of love real humans can't even manage to show.

I'm very confused on why Wall-E goes to work everyday? No one is forcing him to box up trash. Or at least no one is visibly forcing him.

Why are there so many satellites clustered that close to the earth? And how did Wall-E manage to stay on the side of that spaceship?

It's ironic that the humans have machines to make sure there's no containmenation (dirt) anywhere near them. Also, I don't understand the light up lines of the bots can move without them?

I am deathly afraid of an obese world ruled by screens. The absurdity of virtual golfing is beyond me... It's also scary because we have that on the Wii. Are we on our way to that world? I never want to be so fat that I can't stand and have to wait for a service bot to help me up. Also, drinking lunch out of a cup sounds disgusting. Why does this man need shade in SPACE? And did this lady just say she didn't know about the pool? Really?

I'm guessing the evils of man are: selfishness, gluttony, pure ignorance, and obesity? Just kidding.

Can we really count man as the villain in this movie, though? Considering the fact that the humans don't even see anything beyond the screens directly in front of their faces. The robots are actually in full control of every part of the humans' lives.

The idea of the captain asking the computer define "earth" and "sea" is almost too unbelievable. However, I don't think the humans in this movie could be considered the villains here because of this. They don't want to return to earth simply because they haven't known life anywhere except in space for many generations.

Side note: who taught Wall-E how to shake and hold hands? Oh wait, he does watch a lot of movies on earth; maybe that's where he learned it.

Of course there's a self destruct button.

I am still annoyed by the completely inessential robot love. However, I love the people who have taken down their screens. Their excitement in the purest and simplest things in life, like the starsc is what life is all about it.

"I don't want to survive. I want to live." These are wise words to live by. This monologue by the captain supports my point that the humans aren't the villains because he's trying to get them to return to earth, but the ship won't let them.

Obviously Wall-E is the hero in this story. He works effortlessly to take care of the plant that he found. He even disregards Eva trying to hold his hand so that she will focus on the plant.

So does this mean that the robots are The heroes and the villains? It appears that some are on the bad side while Wall-E and Eva are on the good side. The problem presented here though is whether or not the robots are all competent enough to know what they're doing? Obviously the central intelligence assistant to the Captain is competent, but are the guard robots under any form of understanding? Artifical intelligence movies are hard to decode. The humans also end up assisting Eva and Wall-E in their journey to return to earth with the plant, so they can't be villains.

I guess the humans are the ones who destroyed earth in the first place and that might classify them as being villains of the past (700 years in the past to be specific.)

Aw man, trouble in robot love.

Okay, I don't hate this movie, but I'm definitely not excited that I spent the last hour and a half watching it. That's for sure.

Response to Edgerton's and Jackson's 'Redesigning Pocahontas'

Despite the lack of argument within this article, Edgerton and Jackson present insightful information on the topic of Pocahontas. I find it most interesting that Disney went through the trouble of hiring Native American consultants and actors, and yet they still didn’t make the movie historically accurate. I understand that the purpose of all Disney movies is to sell. I also understand that the target audience of these movies are very young and can’t understand complicated, controversial topics. However, I find that the solution to that for Disney should be for them to avoid trying to create historically based movies at all. The article has a quote that says “moviemakers shouldn’t be handcuffed when using real stories as jumping-off places.” I think this statement is obnoxious and literally just an excuse to let Disney off the hook.

Moviemakers shouldn’t attempt to recreate a story if they can’t do so accurately and effectively. The article says that the filmmakers had no intent to offend anyone; however, they should’ve known that ultimately that’s what would happen. I mean, for one, the animators admitted that they based Pocahontas’ looks on a white woman even though they had Native American women that they could’ve drawn from. This should’ve been the first cue that they were treading dangerous territory. Plus, they rewrote the twisted love story that takes place within Pocahontas and generally oversimplified everything else. Yes, they told the story of colonialism, but they pretended that it ended after Governor Radcliffe was vanquished. Also, they kindly left our Pocahontas’ death and the entire genocide of Native Americans—plus Pocahontas’ name change, conversion to Christianity, and the entire supremacy of Europeans. If we’re being fair, you can’t really throw all of that into a Disney movie; no one wants to scare the kids. But, this is precisely why Disney had no business recreating that story. They knew that Pocahontas died in the end and also that colonialism, racism, and environmentalism were touchy topics that they couldn’t adequately display within the realms of children animation. Therefore, they should’ve had SOMEONE with the “balls” to say that it just wasn’t a good idea.

The confusing thing about this article is that it shows conflicting views by Native Americans. Russel Means said he was surprised that Disney was willing to tell the truth—but if Disney had sworn under oath, they would’ve been arrested for perjury. They told the truth, but not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Russell Means also claimed that the film was the “single finest work ever done on American Indians by Hollywood,” but, as Edgerton and Jackson mention, everything before Pocahontas followed the three stereotypes of American Indians. So, Means is basically just saying there was finally a movie that wasn’t offensive—there still wasn’t one that accurately or positively portrayed American Indians and their culture/lifestyle. Irene Bedard says it much better when she says it’s “a step in the right direction” because it’s not great but it’s better. I think that people counting Pocahontas as good enough or great portrayal of American Indians should be ashamed of themselves. It’s literally equated to saying it was good enough that Abraham Lincoln “freed the slaves,” when we all know that his freeing of the slaves was good in theory, but didn’t actually help much.

Overall, I can’t agree or disagree much with Edgerton and Jackson because they don’t put forth an argument, but I do think that Pocahontas supporters are slightly delusional.

Does Disney love its employees?

There are millions-- probably billions-- of people behind the scenes of Disney and its theme parks, movies, toy production, entertainment television, and other business investments. From the people in the Cinderella costumes at Disney World, to the lone janitor that sweeps up the office at HQ, Disney has a lot of people on payroll. However, rarely have I ever stop to think about how Disney treats these people.

Disney puts on such an innocent face for the media and all of the billions of consumers out there, but of course they're dealing some shady business cards. The Orlando Weekly printed a story on Disney's importing of immigrants to replace 250 of its workers with cheaper labor.

Two quick things about this scandal:

1. It's un-American (and possibly very American all at the same time). The American people, especially the extremely conservative people complain about nothing more than immigrants taking our jobs here in America. Every politician campaigns that they will bring more jobs for the people. It's literally one of the biggest issues within our society. So for Disney-- with its conservative American values-- to go against that is just ironic. But then again, big businesses and corporations have been finding loopholes to either export jobs or import cheap laborers since forever. It's practically a right of passage for Disney to join the group. And, the same politicians fighting to create jobs for the American people are the ones overlooking these loopholes. So much irony today.

2. Why does Disney need cheap labor? I'm sure they don't pay their employees that high of a salary to begin with. So for them to bring in immigrants to have even cheaper labor just seems unnecessary. Disney is  worth roughly $165 billion depending on how you look at it. The fact that it fired 250 workers in order to be able to pay new workers less money is just rude. It genuinely makes me lose respect for Disney.

How can you have SO much money and still feel the need to give people the short end of the stick?

My conclusion here is this:

1. America needs to close it's loopholes. I don't know much about the technicalities of business and economics, but someone does, and this needs to be stopped.
2. Disney needs to stop being cheap. You're swimming in money and always will be. Or at least until people find out that you're giving jobs away, because we all know Americans don't like the sound of that.
3. I'm not really sure where I was going with this, but please enjoy this picture of baby Ursula. Innocent on the outside-- evil on the inside-- kind of like Disney.

Reflective Blog Post 3

I think the most startling sentence I've read in criticism of Disney is "This is not the first time that Disney and the U.S. government had adopted similar strategies."

Disney is a children's entertainment company. It is not a political force. It SHOULD NOT be working in cahoots with the government. How is it that our government is strong enough to even employ the use of Disney in brainwashing its audience into supporting military advancements? Or is it the other way around? Is Disney the powerful one with enough influence to support and play off of government agendas?

A visual representation of Disney supporting the military.

If that picture isn't disturbing, then I don't know what is. Mickey mouse, an innocent children's character, shooting a loaded machine gun is exactly what I think of when I think of Disney using it's media outlets to send implicit support of American wars. I especially don't appreciate being awakened to the fact that Aladdin-- my favorite Disney movie-- is just a political incentive.

Everything about what Disney did with Aladdin is problematic.

Number one: You CAN NOT pick and choose which characters get to be full on Arab and which ones get to white. They are all born and raised in the middle east-- they should all reflect middle eastern skin tones and values. Tom Cruise has no business in Agrabah.

Number two: You CAN NOT decide that a country's laws are stupid simply because you don't agree with them. Is it not foul to write off an entire culture because you have a "better idea" of how you think things should be run? I would say I don't blame Disney for this habit-- and blame America instead-- but I quite honestly believe that even if America was a little more open to accepting other countries' cultures and traditions, Disney would still be a bit ticked off that they can't spread their multinational corporation into the Middle East and, therefore, would still produce anti-Semitic values within their movies.

Number three: I understand that things are kept quite literal and basic within children's films so that the young audience will be able to comprehend what's going on-- but to take the literal readings of sharia law and apply it directly to the movie of Aladdin is NOT okay. This is especially harmful when media outlets even continually concede to the fact that Middle Eastern countries do not strictly adhere to the writings of those laws. Arabs aren't barbaric in nature. They aren't. And children shouldn't be allowed to indulge in any form of entertainment that suggests that they are.

My biggest problem with Disney having a political voice is that that voice is full of bigotry and unprecedented hatred. Disney is made up of individuals and those individuals have been brainwashed with the American ideal of freedom and democracy-- the ideal that we push upon every single nation that we think isn't living up to our standards. Disney took it's conservative American values to the Middle East in the movie Aladdin and people applauded them for diversity. However, how can we applaud them for making the Middle East white? We can applaud Disney for diversity when they accurately and positively portray a culture besides white America-- which they have been more successful at in recent years (i.e. Brave 2013).


I guess she counts as white... but she's NOT American!

Dianne MacLeod quotes a journalist that says "It's not racist at all! Disney is like a foreign country..." This quote pretty much implies that we shouldn't criticize Disney because they're a children's entertainment company. However, I believe that once Disney crossed the line into politics they signed up for criticism. If the writers of Disney want to be politicians, then they can receive all of the hate and burden that comes with that. Endorsing the idea that the Middle East is full of evil, corrupt, terrorists-- whether it was a popular idea or not-- was a conscious decision for Disney writers. Think about it this way: If Disney made a movie about the Atlantic Slave Trade and made the African slaves seem barbaric and criminal, and made America seem like a dream come true for them... we'd be furious (or at least I would). And over my dead body would I let someone write it off as "not racist at all" because EVERYTHING about that would be just as racist and problematic as the Arab problem.

After all of this argument, I find myself wondering if the media is really the problem here, or if Americans in general just have a lot to work on... From our "democracy is the only way" mentality to our "we have to make everyone like us" world domination plan, we live like we're the God country of the world. Don't get me wrong... I love America (at least for a few more weeks until the election is over) but HOW is it that we find it okay when WE do historically bad things, but teach our children that it's war if others do the same? Didn't Hitler brainwash Germany into hating Jews? And look at us... brainwashing our country to hate Arabs because Bush told us they were all terrorists? And Disney showed us that they were barbaric?

Maybe I finally see the problem with Disney... and it's really Disney at all... it's American media in general.


Aladdin

Full disclosure: I have read just about every critique of the movie Aladdin so I'm very aware of the "problematic" points of this movie. Therefore, I have decided not to live blog this movie and to just wait until the end and give my overall opinion of whether those critiques could possibly be valid. ALSO, FAVORITE DISNEY MOVIE EVER!!!!!

Interesting enough, I found a lot of things in Aladdin that I didn't remember.

One, Jafar worked for the Sultan.

Two, the men that always tried to arrest Aladdin weren't palace guards, and they answered to Jafar. So now I understand why Disney made them gross looking and unattractive like villains. They tried to kill Aladdin.

Three, I realized that Aladdin has an animal best friend which is what Putnam used a characteristic of femininity in her article. However, Aladdin has the muscular body and the "save the damsel in distress" attitude that fits masculinity. So again, Putnam's work is deemed inaccurate.

Four, the contrast between Aladdin's and Jasmine's unhappiness. Aladdin was unhappy because he was poor and everyone saw him as a worthless street rat; he thought his problems could be solved by becoming rich and living in a palace. However, Jasmine was unhappy because she was shielded within the palace always being waited on hand and foot, so she never got to experience the world on her own; she thought the answer to her problems was to live out in the real world on her own. The lesson here is that neither could survive in the other position.

Five, Iago belonged to JAFAR FIRST. I totally understand the Shakespearean reference now.

When analyzing Aladdin, it's interesting to consider the social implications of being poor and orphaned and then becoming extremely wealthy and privileged simply by marrying well. However, social mobility definitely isn't that easy. Disney presents a message that being poor just goes away without any effort.

Also, at first glance Aladdin seems like a bit of racist implications by Disney. How is it that the first prince of color is a criminal? And he's poor without parents and lives on the streets. Also, majority of the people of color are unattractive with large noses and mustaches and beards. On top of that, Disney makes Aladdin extremely American-- Tom Cruise-- and ignores the fact that he actually is Arabian. But, when has Disney ever been historically or politically correct?

After re-watching Aladdin, I think the idea that Arabian children will hate themselves and their identity is extreme. Giroux stretched that idea. The opening song isn't the nicest, however, not very many people actually catch the lyrics to the song or understand them. And, in every movie there are mean looking people-- are white Americans not susceptible to their villains?? I never watched Aladdin and perceived any amount of Arabian hate within myself. So, for anyone to imply that Aladdin invokes negative identity for Arabian children, is a bit overboard. I do find it disturbing how barbaric they made the once civilian that was about to cut off Jasmine's hand for stealing an apple. That was scary for me as a nineteen year old college student. However, I also find it extremely privileged for Jasmine to not even consider the fact that she has to PAY for something before she can take it (or give it away). She knows money exists.............. Oh and she loves being the princess and living in the palace when it gives her the power to get rid of situations that she doesn't want (i.e. Jafar or the guards arresting Aladdin).

Overall, I still love Aladdin and the song A Whole New World.

Pocahontas

Intial thoughts: I've never seen this movie so I don't have any predispositions. I doubt I actually catch any minute details because this will be my first time watching, but YOLO.

Okay, let me say that the pink outfit is a bit eye-catching. I think even as a child I might've questioned the idea behind that. Don't most children think "boys don't wear pink"? But Governor Radcliffe's voice is very deep and masculine. The pig tails and boys as well as him carrying around this puppy is triggering a bit of femininity.

The native women are beautiful and curvy with their long hair. The men are muscular and strong. Interesting enough, even the old Chief has a strong and tone body. The typical gender roles are employed here with women working the crops and preparing meals and taking care of children; the men are fishing and hunting. However, this is one time that these roles are attributed to Disney; it's a product of the times and survival of native people.

Pocahontas already stands out to me because the elder called her a free spirit and she jumps off a cliff into a waterfall. That's not very feminine at all. She breaks the bounds of gender already. Her and her sister even have a water fight. Pocahontas also even turns down her potential husband and questions her father's choice for her. Her father is typical with his idea that the top warrior is her best prospect because he will "build a sturdy home" and "protect [her]." This ironically contrasts to the Sultan in Aladdin who allows Jasmine to marry Aladdin despite him being poor and a petty thief.

So far, I feel like Pocahontas is a good example to girls. She's strong-willed and free spirited.

A talking tree? Seriously? And an animal audience? Wow, Disney. Wow.

Governor Radcliffe has a huge nose and isn't attractive. His apprentice is quite scrawny and nerdy looking too... Smith is quite handsome though, very chiseled.

Oh, Smith is nice to animals. How clichè.

"Pale visitors" LOL.

Did Radcliffe really just claim land that doesn't belong to him at all? Seriously, settlers are so arrogant. WAIT... Smith just brought recognition that there might be "Indians" (not politically correct at all) out on the land! Is he the good guy? Because I think I like him.

Okay... Radcliffe and this gold outfit is a bit extravagant, especially with the soldiers carrying pink feathers. BUT, he did just get kisses from women fonding over him. SO, this gender stuff is difficult.

I really don't appreciate them just blowing and digging up land... GO HOME THIS PLACE DOESN'T TO YOU. (But thanks because I kind of like America xoxo)

Pocahontas is so HOT and she looks so feminist and powerful when she stands and stops Smith in his tracks and causes him to put his gun down. YOU GO GIRL.

Disney's so corny for the flowing leaves and sparkles around Pocahontas and Smith... I mean I could turn the movie off right now and still know that they get married.

Radcliffe shoots his own gun... and does it well enough that he actually hits someone. So, the henchman point made by LaPointe and Li-Vollmer is void here.

"A man is not a man unless he learns how to shoot." GENDER ROLES DISNEY. This is basically propaganda for conservative America and the second amendment.

Of course he teaches her a handshake. Very macho John.

Thanks for the culture, Disney. I didn't know how they said hello and goodbye.

"We'll show you people how to use this land properly." "You think that only because you don't know any better." "We've been improving the lives of savages all over the world." This is sick and offensive. I'm offended and I'm not even Native American.

"Still I can't see that the savage one is me." YOU GO POCAHONTAS. This song just redeemed Disney because at first I thought this was going to get really disprectful towards Native Americans.

"I've never really belonged anywhere." Please spare me the sob story Johnny boy.

Okay, I want this to be over because their love story is just TOO corny. "When can I see you again?" as he passionately strokes her face. WOWWWWWWW.

"White demons." Ouch, that's kind of harsh.

Radcliffe does represent masculinity in my opinion. He threatens to punish/murder anyone that looks at an Indian; isn't that how men show their masculinity? By being strong in their punishment?

"Sometimes the right path isn't the easiest." Very positive message for Disney.

Interracial relationship? YES DISNEY. LOVE IT. I mean, besides the fact that Smith is pedophilic... but he's a product of the times.

This song sucks.... I can't suffer through 20 more minutes of this. Please. Help me.

"Their skin's a hellish red. They're only good when dead. They're savages." "Barely even human." "They're not like you and me which means they must be evil." This is literally the basis of American racism and white supremacy. This scene and song is so problematic. How did it not get changed like the Aladdin song? This is damaging to young Native American children and to children in general who naturally regurgitate what they hear.

Overall, it's hard to determine who the real villain is here. Obviously Radcliffe is the worst of them all, but all of them are murderous and angry. Villainy isn't the most problematic part of this Disney movie though. The implications of hatred and savagery amongst Native Americans is damaging to the integration of America, but also this might be the most accurate representation of American values and ideas.

Transgendered Villains-- Society or Disney's fault?

 It's obvious that Disney has villains and one of the key indicators of those villains is their deviance from gender roles and sexuality. Jafar, for example, is extremely slim and wears a flowing gown in contrast to Aladdin who is muscular and usually shirtless.

So, of course Jafar isn't macho and masculine.
 

However, some analysts of Disney movie have interpreted these villain indicators as transgendered characteristics that translate in homophobia and heteronormativity.

Amanda Putnam takes an interesting position on heteronormativity in Disney movies, but her analysis is so flawed that it begins to reflect more on her own personality more so than Disney's values. She claims that Disney characters are hyper-heterosexual because they fall in love and get married and "live happily ever after," but since when is that hyper-heterosexual? Don't most people fall in love and get married? Isn't the goal in life to be happy? Personally, I want to get married and live happily ever after, but that's not because I saw a Disney princess do it. It's because religiously, that's a goal in life AND I watched many adults around me live very happily by doing so. Putnam's major argument is based on the idea that heroes and heroines are heterosexual (and good) while the villains and villainesses display transgendered characteristics and, therefore, Disney is presenting the idea that heterosexuality is good and anything beyond that is bad.

The ultimate flaw in Putnam's work is that she equates femininity and masculinity with heterosexuality, and that's just not accurate OR OKAY. Putnam's entire argument is so stereotypical that she can't possibly fix her pen to criticize Disney's portrayal of characters. The Disney princesses do domestic work, love animals, and sing and dance quite gracefully, but does that make them ultra-feminine? No. My mom cooks and cleans quite well, but she was also the biggest tom-boy in high school, playing basketball and running around outside barefoot with her cousins. Putnam's argument that this femininity means that the princesses are heterosexual is bogus. Lots of Lesbian women maintain the same femininity as heterosexual women, and for Putnam to imply that femininity is linked to heterosexuality shows an inner-reflection of her personal stereotyping.

Putnam also makes the point that the princesses are ultra-feminine because they're goals are to get married and have a family. I know she wrote this in 2013, but it's 2016 now and homosexual couples can get married and have families too... these aren't links to heterosexuality. Also, I 'd like to point out that Tiana's goal was to start her own business and live the dream her father wanted. Rapunzel's goal in Tangled was to see the floating lights. So, Disney princesses' goals aren't all linked to "heterosexual" activities.

The humorous part of Putnam's argument is how she equates ugliness to masculinity. In previous articles that we've discussed in class, it's been stated that villainesses are designed to be unattractive in contrast to the super attractive heroines. Well, Putnam says that those villainesses are actually really masculine with their big feet, flat chests, and ugly hairstyles. So, this translates to the idea that masculine women are unattractive which again is a problematic attitude. I mean, even if Putnam does think that I don't think it's okay to subliminally imply that in her work.

Overall, I think that Putnam intended for her article to be an attack on Disney and ended up attacking her own character and personality. We learn most from this article that there are problematic stereotypes within society that have translated into Putnam's perception and maybe even slid into Disney's animated movies.

Reflective Blog Post 2

Can we just discuss the differences between the Disney princesses and how some of them aren't even princesses? Also, these villains are very different-- I mean, they're all deceptive, but most critics of Disney try to lump them all under a general category and that's just not possible.

Full disclosure, Jasmine is my favorite Disney princess.
However, she very obviously reflects Indian culture-- which I love and is mostly why she's my favorite-- she's not even Indian. Technically, she's Arabian... living in the Taj Mahal... That's not my point here (but if you want to read about someone else complaining about the misrepresentation, this video does that well). The interesting point is that she's a Disney princess whose princess movie isn't even about her-- it's not even named after her! Aladdin is the primary focus of the movie, which is the only time the male figure is the focus. I think it's beneficial though because it shows how a woman can have the power to raise the status of a man. I mean, technically Aladdin depends on Jasmine to raise him out of poverty and to also get all his charges of petty theft overlooked by the palace guards. YOU GO JASMINE!

So, the consensus is that Jasmine is considered a Disney princess for the purpose of having diversity in the array of princesses, but is it the diversity even note-worthy if the princess incorrectly reflects the culture? Mulan is another example of incorrectly represented diversity. She's Chinese... wearing a kimono. Also, what are the chances of a woman really being able to disguise herself as a man for that long? Also, isn't it kind of a representation of homosexuality that her and Shang fall in love while she's disguised as a man?

A bit touchy for male to male contact, right?

I mean, I have no problem with homosexuality, but I'm sure Disney's conservative American values are directly in conflict with this situation. Mulan as a princess is different than all the rest because she denies gender roles. She literally takes on a man's job and kicks ass at it. So, I support her as one of the most positive princesses. If my daughter was going to fall in love with one, I'd pick her. I was basically a tomboy myself-- a mini, black Mulan playing basketball on an all-boys team as a fifth grader.

I didn't intend for my blog to only discuss the diversity amongst Disney princesses but now I feel obligated to continue. Disney does an amazing job of adequately depicting New Orleans and Tiana in their first dip into black representation. Ironically, the diverse movies are the ones with the strongest messages for young girls. Tiana presents a message of how hard work makes your dreams come true. A dream beyond true love is startling for a Disney movie; I mean, yes, Tiana finds love, but she wasn't looking for it. So, I think I recant my previous statement. I'd want my daughter to be Tiana: Follow every dream she has with all of her heart and fall in love along the way.

Get you a princess who can do both...

;)

An odd coincidence between all of these princesses are their male villains. Jasmine's villain (or Aladdin's really) is Jafar. Tiana's (also kind of Naveen's and not hers) villain is Dr. Facilier. Mulan's villain is the Huns and Shung Yu-- which are kind of the entire country's villain. So honestly, it appears that the Disney princesses that embody strong feminist values lack direct attack by a villain. Of course their lives are affected, but the intentions of the villains of the various movies aren't to ruin the princesses' lives. So I guess it's easier to be feminist when you aren't busy fighting off your villain. Then again, Tiana and Mulan both remain pretty strong in their feministic ways even while struggling in their battle against the enemy.

So, young girls I say to you: Be a Tiana. Be a Mulan. Be a Jasmine. Except, really just be a Tiana because dressing up like a man to do male things isn't exactly normal and Jasmine didn't actually do much except riding a flying carpet, which is cool, but not very distinctive.

Little Mermaid Live Blog

Ursula is very purple, large, and has a deep voice. Basically, she's unattractive. Ariel is pretty and Tritan is a strong, masculine man. So, the first obvious contrast is in appearance. Ursula is the evil one, and Ariel and Tritan are on the good side.

My first impression is that Ariel is the good girl, because she has an innocent goal. She just wants to know what the human world is like; she wants to learn more. However, Ursula is bad because she's jealous of Tritan and Ariel and her goal is to harm them.

The prince just saved his dog from a burning ship... How can we not love him? If that doesn't create a hero, then what possibly could? Ariel just saved the prince from drowning in the ocean. She's a hero.

This movie kind of presents the idea that there's a better life out there than yours. Ariel is so unhappy with her life that she's willing to risk her voice and disobey her father in order to go find a new world and be with a man. This is a disturbing concept to teach young girls: give everything you have to make yourself the perfect fit for a man and you'll be happy. Somehow I feel like I personally ingested this message and that didn't exactly end positively for me.

I love how Ursula pretends that she helps people with needs when she really scams them. How does Ariel even seriously believe this load of crap? Does she not see this mole? Does she not see the souls and the evil fish? RED FLAGS!

Oh and how is she willing to give up her entire family for a guy? Unacceptable!!!!!!! I'm surprised Disney let this one slide considering they're most important value is family.

It's important to note that even though Ariel traded her voice for legs, her voice is actually what Prince Eric was in love with. So, Ursula was incorrect in her statement.

Disney movies are a lot sadder when you actually understand what's going on. I can't believe Ursula played Ariel like this. She really created a cute girl and gave her Ariel's voice. The fact that this doesn't work out just goes to show that you have to be original.

Ursula is even more disgusting and terrifying when she's angry. I probably will have nightmares about giant Ursula; I'm not kidding. Her voice gets even deeper when she's angry too.

OMG, YES! Happy ending! Not that I didn't expect this happy ending, but I'm legitimately excited for this one. I'm happier with the fact that her father was willing to give up what he believes is right in order to see her happy than the fact that her and the prince fell in love. Oh and, I'm glad that Ursula is gone too.

Disney love is so extremely corny and so is the rainbow at the end of the movie.

Cinderella Live Blog

Initial thoughts: the opening song is very sad and kind of creepy. It sounds like funeral music quite honestly.

The stepmother and the daughters look mean and bad from the beginning. However, they aren't ugly or disgusting looking. They're frowning and have really big hair. Cinderella appears as happy and prettier than them.

If the birds love Cinderella and come when she sings, she must have a beautiful soul!

"If you tell a wish, it won't come true." Disney's implicit teaching of children.

Cinderella is hopeful. "One thing they can't order me to do is stop dreaming." This is probably the most important message of Cinderella. No matter how oppressed you get, never stop dreaming. Interesting enough, I feel this applies very largely to the black community.

"No matter how your heart is dreaming, if you keep on believing, the dream that you wish will come true." This is my new favorite quote. It will definitely be what gets me through my years at Duke.

I think it's interesting that even the cat is stuck-up and mean. He wears the same frown that the stepsisters and stepmother had at the very beginning of the movie. The concept that hate is a learned concept shows heavily here; they even taught the cat that he was better than Cinderella.

Cinderella's good soul shines through because she tells Bruno, the dog, that it's bad for him to dream about catching Lucifer, the cat. She even looks to find the good in Lucifer-- even though she can't.

I think the best thing Disney did in Cinderella was produce a character that was admirable and lovable. Not only is she beautiful, but her soul is too. She is kind to the animals and feeds them. She is hopeful and happy even when she reserves every right to be bitter. We love Cinderella because she loves the world.

I am sorry, but if I was Cinderella, I would be spiking that morning tea. No way they would be ringing bells at me like that and screaming at me. How does she manage to still smile and say good morning to them? They're in no way superior to her.

Interesting how Cinderella carries a probably like 30 pound bag of laundry on her head like that wouldn't snap her neck.

Okay, I take back what I said. The stepsisters are actually really ugly as adults. As children, they looked cuter. This might be a reflection of their increase in wealth that made them feel even more entitled. However, they're not the most hated characters because they lack intelligence as well as power to actually inflect in pain in Cinderella's life. They're simply tattle tales. The stepmother, however, is more attractive than the stepsisters but she is calm with her infliction of evil on Cinderella.

"Love is just a girl meeting a boy under the right conditions. So, we'll arrange it for him." -The King
The funny part about this scene is that the girl figurine is actually pictured after Cinderella-- clever foreshadowing Disney. Too bad eight year olds have no idea what that even means.

Again, the best part about the stepsisters is that they're awful at everything. They're not smart, pretty, and they can't sing. Basically, you don't even care about how mean they are because their lives are bad anyways.

I love that the mice call her Cinderelly.

uh oh. "Leave the sewing to the women. You go do some trimming." There go those gender roles Disney. I'm a young woman who has no idea how to sew, but then again I'm much younger than the Cinderella movie.

I hate the stepmother. I can appreciate the stepsisters acting outrageous and being jealous, but the calmness the stepmother has when she's being absolutely horrid and evil is sickening. Rage is less terrifying than serenity.

I find it interesting that the song of the fairy godmother is bippity boppity boo instead of alacadabra. I guess Disney couldn't buy that phrase?

Disney's appearance conventions don't work in Cinderella. The fairy godmother is plump, but she's a part of the good team and so is the mice Gus. The stepsisters and stepmother have attractive body figures, and the stepmother is even attractive minus her grey hair.

The irony of the entire ball is that Cinderella doesn't even know that she was with the prince when I'm sure Disney worked really hard to make him a beautiful prince charming. When she leaves from the ball, her carriage is sparkling and white, but the contrast of the palace's horses are dark and shadowy. Normally that would imply evil, but those men aren't evil; they're just trying to make real love happen.

Cinderella becomes entirely engrossed in herself when she thinks about seeing the man she's in love with. Disney's representation of women as being incapable of thought when thinking of love is a very poor one. It's scary that the representation of women stepping on each other and using evil methods in order to obtain the admirable man is quite accurate though. As a child, I never realized the problem with that but after living through majority of my teenage years, I'm much more accustomed to the idea.

I can't believe she just made him break the slipper! She was willing to cause the king's wrath just to keep Cinderella from being able to marry the prince. But of course Disney slides in with the happy-ever-after.

Overall, Cinderella is a calmer Disney movie. There's evil, of course, but it's human evil. The evil presented in this movie is the kind that lives inside all of us. There's jealousy, anger, selfishness, and greed. The stepmother and stepsisters embody those characteristics. Cinderella, however, embodies the ideas of hope, beauty, kindness, and compassion. In the end, Cinderella is seen for all her beauty and the "good soul" wins. The only problematic message of this Disney movie-- if thinking in terms of Giroux-- is that Cinderella is saved by the prince. Her life becomes whole and good when she marries him. It's not exactly ideal to tell young girls that a man is the answer to their problems-- maybe in the olden days, but not in the 21st century.

Black-ish takes on Disney

Black-ish is an ABC television show on it's third season. The show depicts the upper middle class Johnson family that struggles with trying to be a normal American family and a " traditional black family." The recent premiere of the first third season episode was about the Johnsons going on their first trip to Disney world-- the father Dre is especially concerned with making this the best family vacation ever since he didn't enjoy his own childhood Disney experience.

Of course they took a picture with Mickey.

My first question is how did Disney allow for Black-ish to incorporate the name and brand of Disney into its show? I mean, the choices are either that Disney was paid quite a lot of money by ABC and Black-ish or that Disney owns ABC and sponsored the episode itself. Either way, I think the depiction of Disney shows exactly how consumed America is with Disney-- particularly Disney World.

Dre believes that, in order for his family to have the BEST experience, he has to purchase the VIP package which reflects the American mindset of instant satisfaction. Throughout the episode, Disney is repeatedly stated to be the happiest place on earth and everyone is shown having a great time-- except the people in the general population line which promotes Disney's VIP package implicitly. The most obvious Disney promotion was in the mother, Bo, and the grandparents were having an awful time and attempted to return to their hotel and ended up falling in love with Disney before they could find the exit gate. Their "love" for Disney was expressed by them enjoying the parade and buying a ton of souvenirs at the gift shops.

Personally, I love Black-ish as a show, and, although this wasn't the best episode, I still enjoyed it. However, there were some heavy critics on the Hulu website where I watched it. People commented things like:

• "The worst episode they've ever made"
• "It's basically a 30 minute ad for Disney. I hate product placement."
• "It's like the '90's all over again back when Disney bought ABC. I wonder why they're at it again."

The question here is: Do people really hate Disney that much that it could ruin an entire TV series for them? Maybe Henry Giroux isn't the only bitter consumer of Disney. My personal opinion is that the TV show Black-ish is a satirical show about a family trying to live the best American family experience in general so going to Disney HAD to be included-- it's only right. It's not like they renamed the show to Disney-ish. People have to chill.

Maybe I wasn't a '90s kid? Or maybe I didn't love Disney enough?

I just want to say that I'm a '90s kid and I don't quite relate to very many of these-- maybe I just wasn't a Disney fanatic? I relate most to number 28; that Disney pictures animation sparked a fire in my soul every time.

It brings me happiness just looking at it, how about you?

P.S. I WISH I had known about the Aladdin sequels when I was a kid-- I would be able to quote those movies from memory by now.

Reflective Blog Post

"Disney isn't in the business of exploiting Nature so much as striving to improve upon it, constantly fine-tuning God's work." -Carl Hiassen, Team Rodent

In one sentence, Carl Hiassen has stated what I find to be the single most mind-blowing thing about Disney. Disney is this perfectly well-oiled machine pushing out happiness and sucking in money. Does Disney's desire to maintain it's multi-billion dollar business make it evil, though? Essentially, the American answer is no. I mean, the American dream is own a business in a capitalist society and have a happy life, so we can't blame Walt Disney for pursuing this dream and capitalizing on it in every way possible. But how far is too far in the realm of business?

In class we discussed Henry Giroux's Animating Youth and, for him, too far was when Disney began "hijacking" the youth's childhood under its "scandalous philosophy of money." Basically, Giroux got pretty heated because Disney was using it's movies, parks, and advertisements to totally encompass every aspect of the youth's lives. Giroux is a bit bitter and paranoid though, I must say. Of course when he uses the words "hijacking" and "commercial carpet bombing," Disney begins to seem like an evil terrorist group out to take over the mind of the youth all across the world, BUT in reality, it's a children's company. Of course it targets children, not very many adults tend to find appeal in oversized mice dressed in overalls. Giroux is reaching a bit in his article-- he can't blame Disney for what the 21st century has done to children. Disney didn't make technology more advanced or popular-- you can charge that problem to Apple (consequently the largest shareholder in Disney). In the words of Hiassen, Disney simply "improved upon" what was already in front of it. Children were already using loads of media, so Disney brought it's movies, games, and tv shows to the internet, to DVD, and to cell phones. But again, what business hasn't? Giroux can't blame Disney for keeping up with fast-pace technology era or for broadening it's audience to include boys and an older age group. It's simply JUST business-- business that Disney does extremely well in comparison to most companies.

(Pause: Disney's company actually has it's own website. That's so surreal. I've never even really thought about Disney as a business-- even as I've been writing these blogs-- just as a realm of happiness and dreams, but the website makes it so real. Disney happiness is partially about the money.)

Carl Hiassen takes a different attack on Disney. He actually blames Disney for consistently trying to tweak nature and dodge rules in order to fit its agenda.

1. Disney physically changed the appearance of Bay Lake in order to make the Disney tower there more photogenic.

2. Disney attempts-- and gets state approval-- to build a park 6 miles from a Civil War memorial site.
In this situation I'm actually not sure which is more un-American, defecating a war memorial OR opposing Disney, but the people in Virginia were sure and that's why "Disney America" never happened.

Apparently this is representative of what that park would've looked like and, rumor has it that there might be a rebirth of the plan.

3. Disney buys and creates a sovereign city called 'Reedy Creek' so that its park will remain solely under its own jurisdiction.

Reedy Creek has its own emergency services-- including a fire department.

If these three points don't attest to Disney's power, then maybe the fact that Disney consistently tries to casually rewrite History into this pretty, polished timeline will help.

1. Disney has "Main Street America" in its major theme park, but is that really representative of America? Or is it simply the polished, conservative view that Disney can sell?
 

2. Disney even took the courtesy of casually changing a previously drug-smuggling island into a cute resort. Castaway Cay is classic representation of Disney using its power to polish over the past in order to fit it into the current agenda.

Beautiful Disney resort or drug smuggling island?

Ironically, Justice Burger referred to Disney as being well-known for patriotic and history-minded enterprise... but how? When you really check the facts, Disney has a bad habit of glazing over the real history and making it Disney-friendly. (No really, has he not seen Pocahontas?) So, the question is whether Justice Burger was bribed to say that or if Disney's innocence really does shield it from critique and scrutiny as Giroux said. I mean, if America only consisted of white, middle-class, conservatives then yeah, sure. Disney is doing a great job. But America doesn't only consist of those people and neither does its history.

Let's be clear: I don't hate Disney and for the most part, I don't think there's anything wrong with how Disney does its thing. BUT, there are some questionable and shady things going on in the background. I'm not on Giroux's side-- I don't think Disney is corrupting the minds of children. I think the sector of Disney that writes movies and TV shows is full of innocence, magic, and good intentions. However, the part of Disney that digs up and refills swamps, creates a sovereign city, and covers up all its blunders with large sums of money-- that part of Disney needs to be checked. This is capitalist America, but even the average American hates Donald Trump, an amazing (AND SHADY) businessman. So, let's look at Disney's BUSINESS a little closer because it isn't all magic fairy dust and princess smiles.


Response to Carl Hiassen's 'Team Rodent'

Personally, I like Hiassen. If I could choose between Hiassen's slightly inappropriate language and Giroux's bitterness, I'd choose Hiassen every time.

The main differences between Giroux and Hiassen are that:

1. Hiassen criticizes Disney's business tactics and sworn vow to secrecy. He hates Disney because Disney can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, with little responsibility held for who or what they destroy in the process. Giroux on the other hand hates Disney for being a business-- which is simply unreasonable. Of course Disney wants to appeal to parents' pockets-- how else will they continue to be a business? You can't hate a business for it's marketing tactics. You CAN hate a business from restructuring an entire state to fit their needs.

2. Hiassen gives examples that even people who love Disney can't help but admit are extremely disturbing where as Giroux is upset about things that regular Disney consumers generally fail to notice or worry about. I mean, personally, I'm a lot more concerned with Disney digging up a lake and refilling it in order to make it blue and appealing than with them casually placing the phrase "Mozart makes babies smarter" in the movie The Incredibles. Giroux's ability to turn very minute problems into very big deals is pretty much just annoying and makes him seem bitter. Hiassen, on the other hand, appeals to people's struggle against authority. The average citizen hates to see big businesses get away with manipulation of the people and government, and that's basically why Hiassen says he's anti-Disney.



Bay Lake: the lake Disney causally refilled for the purpose of pictures like this-- dirty swamp water wasn't ideal.

My personal appeal to Hiassen is that he recognizes that there are two groups of people working for Disney-- which is exactly what I mentioned in one of my earlier blog posts. There's the Insane Clown Posse and there's the script writers, actors, and mickey mouse. The latter is here for the enjoyment of children-- and he acknowledges that his hate isn't particularly towards them. Hiassen even took his son to Disney because he knows that Disney is a key part in American childhood. I appreciate that he even acknowledges that Disney is actually fun and extremely safe. He isn't in favor of the Michael Eisners, the people who sweep all bad publicity under the rug and attempt to keep Disney's image polished at all costs. He isn't in favor of the marketers of Disney who casually create a sovereign city for Disney to manipulate and control-- which actually sounds a bit psycho.

After reading the entire 'Team Rodent' book, I have developed a slight distaste for Disney as a business. "Check your privilege at the door (or state line)" basically sums up my opinion of Disney right about now. Yes, you are a multinational, multi-billion dollar corporation BUT, you aren't God. You can't rewrite history or restructure nature just because you feel like it. I understand why Hiassen's so angry with Disney. Disney did ruin Florida-- his home-- with the addition of Disney World, but, like Hiassen pointed out, Disney's business helped a LOT of other business grow as well. Disney's billion dollar company multiplied the revenue and profit of hundreds of small businesses. So while having tons of tourists might suck in terms of pollution, it also is amazing in terms of profit for the state of Florida. Hiassen just has to understand that sometimes you have to give up some things in order to gain greater benefits. Beyond that, I find Hiassen to be reasonably upset.

The most ridiculous account of Hiassen's Disney rant is that he refused to accept ANY free stuff from Disney. I mean c'mon, he could've racked up probably thousands of Disney items, and, with his hate for Disney being so strong, I doubt it would've had any bias on his writing at all. He literally would've just written "Although Disney tried their hardest to butter me up, joke's on them, I still think their hideous nature-ruining, history-changing, secrets-covering criminals." But I guess that just boils down to journalism stuff that I don't quite understand. If it was me though, I would take the stuff and probably write a ravishing review of Disney-- but that's more closely related to the fact that I don't have a personal vendetta against Disney and I do like free stuff.