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.

Giroux IS attacking Disney-- Supplementary Post

In class today, there was a point made that Giroux isn't necessarily attacking Disney. The explanations that followed were:

1. Giroux has to use strong language in order to get our attention about the problems with Disney, and
2. He's arguing that all multinational corporations have too extensive of power and Disney is just an example.

Obviously I disagree with both of these statements. Giroux is directly attacking Disney-- the man literally wrote two articles (and I'm sure many more) that are seventeen years apart, both of which coincidentally talk a whole lot about Disney. SEVENTEEN YEARS is a long time to still be very angrily talking about the SAME topic-- I mean, that has to imply that he has a strong (for lack of a better word) grudge against Disney. Plus, I believe that there's a difference between *strong* language and *aggressive* and *destructive* language with Giroux very much walking on the side of the latter.

On the point of the second statement, Giroux does talk wholesomely about multinational corporations and consumerism in general, BUT again his language is most aggressive against Disney itself. What about Apple? Apple has brainwashed the millennial generation into living and breathing through technology and social media by making it accessible in every form. What about the NBA? They target families, children, wholesome values in order to spike the interest in THEIR business. The same with the NFL. Often times people over look the fact that these are big businesses too! People get wrapped up in their love for a player or a team and forget that it's a business, and the players and teams make decisions ultimately that will make them money.

So, my point is that Giroux IS attacking Disney specifically and that his language very much makes his audience (or at least me) want to love Disney more to make up for how much he hates it-- which ultimately defeats the purpose of his argument in the first place.
Visual representation of Giroux's articles. (Giroux on left, Disney on the right)

Disney's noted (but failed) attempt at real life representation

In Giroux's article about animated youth, he points out that Ariel from the Disney movie "The Little Mermaid" had the body posi of a Southern California Vogue model. He criticizes this representation of women by Disney as being detrimental to young girls and not reprenstative of how majority of women actually look. This buzzfeed post boasts about how Moana, a new edition to the Disney princess collection, has a more realistic body, but I disagree. Although she is bigger than the average vogue model, she isn't very realistic still. I'm waiting for the day when being plump or overweight is no longer associated with being the villain like Ursula in The Little Mermaid. I'm not saying tell kids being overweight is cool, but stop making being a princess/desirable synonymous with being slim.

Disney voices :)

Please enjoy this hilarious Video of a grown man singing Let it Go in Disney Character voices :)

I personally appreciate the Winnie the Pooh impersonation the most, but feel free to form your own opinions.

My response to Giroux's "Animated Youth"

Before I begin, I'd like to say two things:
1. Giroux has this magical talent where he takes something fun, and murders it. This article was terribly boring to read for the most part and had way too many big word that very easily could've been replaced with simpler synonyms.
2. Disney has officially been ruined for me. More specifically, Aladdin is my favorite Disney movie and Giroux took that movie and made it evil. So thanks, I really appreciate that Giroux.

Now, I'll move on to the real academic response. I have to admit that Giroux did open my eyes to a wide range of problems with Disney movies that I had never even considered in my lifetime. When I think about Disney criticisms, I think of gender roles-- how the princess always "needs saving" by the prince charming-- or I think of how 99% of Disney princesses are white and wealthy. However, Giroux goes so much farther than that. He analyzes very small details in such a way that seems almost pessimistic. I mean, he calls Belle a Disney feminist, but then goes on to say that she's really just a prop for solving the Beast's dilemma. And I say pessimistic because what eight year old girl is going to think "Oh, the Beast is just using Belle for her power to turn him back into a man." Let me answer that, NOT ONE. As an eight year old girl, I saw true love. I saw a girl that looked past the ugly outside into the soft heart of a man and fell in love-- Belle solidified the idea that beauty is on the inside, and we should never judge a book by its cover.

I agree with Giroux in the sense that Disney has a conservative way of setting social standards for children, but I question how much of an affect this actually has on the youth that these films are presented to. The least stretched ideas of Giroux are:
(1) that showing Arabs as terrifying, ugly villains can promote hate of middle eastern citizens, and
(2) that the "damsel in distress" storyline can lead to young girls defining their quality of life on whether or not they've found their prince charming.
Other than that, I find that Giroux has overstretched the bounds of what young children can comprehend. As a child, I never developed marginalized self-love because there wasn't a Disney princess with the same skin color as me-- the thought never crossed my mind. As a youth, the vogue-like body of Ariel-- as Giroux refers to it-- never made me feel ashamed of my more rounded figure. I never even considered the fact that Disney ALWAYS represented a monarchy as the form of government in its films when the country that Disney was fostered in is democratic. Most of these things meant nothing to me as a child, I simply enjoyed the happy endings of the movie where the bad guy was defeated and everyone found true love. If anything, the most damaging part of Disney is growing up and realizing you'll never be a princess, because your country is actually a democracy.

So, I have to say that Giroux went overboard in his analysis of Disney and ultimately ruined Disney movies for me for basically no reason at all. And I believe that studying Disney analytically should be left for adults to do, because learning that your favorite Disney movie is actually geared to racial hate of Arabs is too traumatizing for young children. I say leave it to the adults because, like Giroux said, Disney is a powerful institution that needs to be held accountable for what it's presenting to it's youthful audiences, but it's not so bad that we need to scare the children. Let's get more people of color in Disney movies and give women jobs that incorporate more than being pretty trophy wives and let's see the working class represented in a more positive light. But, let's not destroy children's hopes and dreams and the "pleasures" that they find in Disney movies.

How did Disney affect me?

Okay, I just want to give fair warning that this might be the most cliché and the corniest blog post you ever read, BUT it is an accurate reflection of Disney's affect on my life.

Disney shaped and formed my belief in true love. As a young girl watching Disney princess films, I was drawn in by the handsome men that fought for the beautiful princesses and their happily ever after love story. Even more so, I was in love with the story of the underdog and the unlikely husband candidate that would sweep the princess off her feet-- i.e. Aladdin. Watching a Disney movie, there was always love. As a kid, even if you couldn't find love anywhere else, you could find it in a Disney movie-- and I did, which is why I love Disney movies so much. However, plenty of people find error in the things that I found hope in through Disney movies.

For example, the tumblr page "waltdisneyconfessions" says this about Disney movies:


I, on the other hand, found true love at like age 13. (No seriously I did.) He was my best friend from 6th grade until 10th grade when we started dating, and I've never loved anyone more in my entire life. Statistically, most people meet who they'll marry between 7th and 12th grade anyways-- and I did. And where most people would be skeptical about falling in love so young, I'm hopeful. I'm exuberant. I think the BEST time to fall in love is when you're too young to have been corrupted by the pessimists of the world. Why is that? I believe in true love, because Disney taught me that it exists. Disney taught me that you find love in imperfect people when you open your eyes and look real close. I believe in true love because Snow White and Rapunzel were awakened with a kiss. Because Jasmine chose the impoverished criminal as her prince. Because Cinderella had the courage to try that glass slipper on and marry her prince charming-- and one day I'll marry mine.



If Disney had never shown me true love and how to pursue it with a passion, I'd probably never have made it into my relationship with my best friend-- and I'd probably be pessimistic about marriage and love in general-- because in a world where my mom and dad split when I was two months old, and my mom's never been married-- just in a 18 year long relationship-- there's little hope of true love or happily ever after. So, thank you Disney for showing me true love before I could even spell the words.

Why Decoding Disney? Introductory Post.

First thing's first, my name is Raisa, and I've never been to Disney. Like, ever. So, I can very objectively say that I didn't sign up for decoding Disney because I love Disney world, because I've never been. To be quite honest, I would much rather to go Orlando and visit the Wizarding World of Harry Potter. This isn't to say that I don't, however, love Disney-- because, to be fair, that's just quite inhumane.

When Duke finally released the list of writing 101 class options, every single girl in Duke class of 2020 went nuts over it. Everyone wanted the Disney princess class and, to be frank, I hate fan-girling over things with everyone else. So, despite my slight spike in excitement over seeing a Disney class, I scrolled through the list and took note of the addiction writing 101 class, as well as the sports and inequality one. I was determined not to fight and fan girl over the Disney course. And, if we're being honest, I didn't even think I could take a "Disney" course serious enough to WANT to do the work.

(P.S. In hindsight, I'm very excited to do the work for this Disney course so I was very much wrong in my thinking.)

So why did I sign up? I signed up because I wanted to take Hindi and I needed a morning writing 101 class so my schedule wouldn't be too spaced out-- and this was the most interesting choice. Much to my surprise, I managed to gain a slot in the class and I'm excited to see where the class takes me!

Now, I said I've never been to Disney, but I have seen nearly any Disney movie you can think of-- even The Hunchback of Notre Dame (which isn't a popular choice but I loved it!). I even adore Disney channel-- which isn't a great representation of Disney as a whole-- but it's good enough. I'm most interested in learning about the conflicts people have with Disney. The course description implies that there are people who genuinely have a distaste for Disney and what it stands for, and I just don't see how! How does a person NOT love Disney? Again, it's INHUMANE to go against Disney. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF PERSON CAN SPEAK BAD WORDS AGAINST DISNEY! And, that is precisely what I plan to find out. I mean, what could be so bad about Disney that a person would want to go around destroying beautiful dreams and happy endings for children?

Oh, and about the theme on villainy, I'm hoping to come to love some of the evil characters-- I mean, they have it pretty hard in the movies, so it's about time someone gives them a break. In the book Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card states that in the moment that he fully understands his enemy, he loves them-- "it is impossible to really understand somebody... and not love them the way they love themselves." Throughout this Disney course, I expect that I will come to understand the function of a Disney villain within the context of the movie, as well as the context of my own life, and through that understanding I will love them.

Stepping away from that serious and deep stuff though, I want to be that really annoying person that learned something new and now gets to show it off to everyone she knows! I want to be able to watch Cinderella and say, "OMG! You know the stepmother was just really miserable and lonely and that's why she treated Cinderella so horribly? Oh, and, by the way, you hate your own stepmother because you watched Cinderella and Snow White as a kid and it made you believe that all stepmother's are inherently evil." Now THAT would blow some minds.

Most of all, this course should be exciting because it takes something as simple and lovely as Disney movies and gives them whole new meanings. It's almost like mixing Disney and Psychology/Sociology together, because it looks at the effects of Disney movie on social constructs and children behavior and growth-- and as an intended Psychology/Sociology double major I couldn't be more excited about that!