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.