Response to "'You're a Surprise From Every Angle': Disability, Identity, and Otherness in The Hunchback of Notre Dame"

          In "Disability, Identity, and Otherness in The Hunchback of Notre Dame,"Martin Norden criticizes Disney's portrayal of its protagonist, Quasimodo as a disabled other. Norden argues that Quasimodo is very much separated from the "normal" people of Paris and remains that way throughout the movie. In typical Disney happy ending spirit, the last scene of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is that of Quasimodo being carried by a Parisian crowd. While this may seem like acceptance, Norden points out that he is still very much isolated from the rest of the community. He can never be one of them. He can never just be "normal."
          The fact that Quasimodo had to save the entire city from fire and an evil villain in order to gain only the respect of the townspeople is offensive enough. With The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Disney hopes to send out the message that beauty is only skin deep. However, this is very hypocritical because, as Norden points out, the animators working on the movie spent just over eight months trying to make Quasimodo kid-friendly. If he was too deformed or ugly, Disney wouldn't think the audience could ever accept him. That is exactly against the argument of the movie. Adding onto that, Quasimodo must be perfect in every way in order for the audience to forgive his deformity. Norden describes this as the film trope, "The Sweet Innocent."
          Norden ends the article with a sweet description of the budding romance Quasimodo has in The Hunchback of Notre Dame II. I, on the other hand, am not so optimistic for Quasimodo's love life. To me, Disney sequels don't really count because they are made by entirely different people. I don't think that the Quasimodo from the real movie has any romance to look forward to. Quasimodo only wants to be normal, but in this movie, I just don't see that as possible.

Response to "Disney's Sub/version of Andersen's The Little Mermaid"

          In "Disney's Sub/version of Andersen's The Little Mermaid," Roberta Trites examines Disney's changes to Andersen's original story, which in turn, made The Little Mermaid (1989) more sexist.
          To start, in Andersen's original version, Ariel wants to turn into a human to gain a soul. Disney flipped that entirely around in making Ariel want to be human to win over a boy. On top of that, Disney's Ariel has never officially spoken to him, so she is merely admiring him as an object. This goes along with Trites's argument that Ariel's motivation for becoming a human is entirely materialistic. Adding to that, Andersen's Ariel realizes that she cannot win over the prince's love based off of looks alone. Instead, she only redeems herself in the end, when she sacrifices herself. Disney's Ariel is, one again, the opposite. Disney's Ariel finds love even though she has no way to communicate with Prince Eric, which shows that she believes in love based off of looks.
          Not only is Disney's Ariel materialistic, but she cannot solve her own problems. Throughout the movie, she is entirely dependent on men to solve her issues. Trites's points out that Ariel runs from the protection of her father to the protection of her husband, Eric (who, in the end, kills Urusula, not Ariel). This is just a reiteration of the sexist belief that women need a man's protection.
         These sexist ideas are not the kind that should be sent out to children. While Andersen's The Little Mermaid is very dark and gloomy, it holds more substance than Disney's The Little Mermaid ever will.

Response to "Challenging Disney Myths"

           In "Challenging Disney Myths," Janet Wasko breaks down five different myths surrounding the Disney corporation. The one I will be specifically responding to is Myth 1: Walt Disney, the Creative Genius.
           Janet Wasko begins by pointing out the inaccuracies surrounding Walt's hometown. She states that Walt was born in Chicago, moved to Missouri for four years, moved to Kansas City for seven years, then finally back to Chicago. She then states that Walt's southern roots are therefore relatively shadow, which makes him phony for his attachments to small-town America. I think that her assessment is unjust. Walt Disney spent eleven years of his childhood in the South, which constitutes a large majority of his childhood. Even if he lived in the South for only a few years, that may have just been the place where he had his fondest memories. People are allowed to romanticized whichever towns they please, Janet Wasko.
          Then next point which I think is outlandish is Wasko's argument against Walt as a family-man. Wasko seems to imply that because Walt and his older brother were abused by their father, Walt isn't in a position to build a company promoting positive family life. In my opinion, I think the poor relationship Walt had with his own family actually pushed him more towards creating a company promoting a healthy family environment. Walt never had it, but he wished it for everyone else.
          In thinking about my strong reaction to this article, I feel like I may overly idolize Walt Disney, but I can't change my opinion on him. Walt Disney made his dreams come true and that makes him a true American hero. I might just be stubborn, but Wasko's article did not change my perceptions of Walt Disney in the slightest. I

Response to "Saving Other Women from Other Men in Aladdin"

           In Erin Addison's article, "Saving Other Women from Other Men in Aladdin," she argues that Disney's Aladdin (1993) is wildly racist. Addison points out that Arabs as a whole are portrayed negatively with the exception of Aladdin. But, Aladdin has been made to look like Tom Cruise, so can he even be considered as an Arab? Arabs are portrayed as needing rescuing from their own cultures. Jasmine rejects the Q'ran and Aladdin offers her the American perspective of marriage. I agree with Addison that Islamic culture has been villianized in Aladdin. Islamic culture should not have to be saved by 
          The most interesting point I think this article makes is the significance of Aladdin's last few lines in the movie. When Aladdin and Jasmine are finally together by the end of the movie, Aladdin says to Jasmine, "call me Al." Now, not only does Aladdin look like an American (Tom Cruise specifically) just with slightly darker skin, he now has just a typical American name. Aladdin has now become fully Americanized. Addison also raises the issue that Aladdin is influenced by greed, which is portrayed positively, while Jafar is influenced by power, which is portrayed negatively. This is an entirely capitalistic American perspective, which is highly biased.
          But why should we care if this silly cartoon portrays Islamic culture in a negative light? We should care because American portrayal of Islam and Muslim people as in need of our help needs to stop. Aladdin  depicts Muslim culture in such a way that it needs “rescuing” by American culture, when that is not the case. It villianizes Eastern culture by introducing an elitist American perspective.

Response to "Blackness, Bayous, and Gumbo: Encoding and Decoding Race in a Colorblind World"

           In Sarah E. Turner's article, "Blackness, Bayous and Gumbo: Encoding and Decoding Race in a Colorblind World," she discuses Disney's The Princess and the Frog (2009) in regards to race and the idea of colorblindness.
          Turner leads with that Disney wants the audience to think that Tiana is not "a black princess" but just "a princess." However, Disney clearly had race at the forefront of its mind when making this movie. This race the paradox of colorblind racism. Turner argues that simply ignoring Tiana's race is still a form of racism. I agree with her here. Disney seems to entirely avoid any issues with race, but that shouldn't be entirely done. Just like being a girl is part of my identity, being black is part of Tiana's and that doesn't have to be ignored just to make people feel comfortable. But, I understand that Disney is a corporation that needs to make money, so they can't alienate their largely colorblind audience.
          In addition to those complaints, Turner then goes on to talk about the setting. The Princess and the Frog takes place in 1920s New Orleans. You can already see why there might be issues with that. This movie may not have depicted an accurate portrayal of race relations in the 1920s, but that would've lead to entirely different movie. I think that this is a bit of a nit-picky complaint because since when has Disney been realistic? When the premise of a movie evolves around turning into frogs, you can't really sit and complain about the setting being inappropriately portrayed.
          While there are quite a few poor choices by Disney in this movie, I still enjoyed it and I don't feel that it is racist. But is this movie a revolutionary step forward for Disney? Not quite. Turner ends with the same conclusion as I do: at least they're trying.

Response to "Post Princess Models of Gender: The New Man in Disney/Pixar"

          While I could read endless papers about female gender roles in Disney movies, I've noticed a lack of research on the male gender roles. The idea that a female can be masculine is entirely more widely accepted than the idea that a male can be feminine. That just simply doesn't make sense to me. In "Post-Princess Models of Gender: The New Man in Disney/Pixar," the author explores these ideas along with its creation of a postfeminist model of gender.
          The most interesting part of this article to me was the realization that quite a few Pixar movies follow very similar plot lines. The basic outline of this fundamental pixar plot is an overly masculine male protagonist is defeated. The rest of the movie follows that newly de-masculinized protagonist gaining back his masculinity and finding friendship along the way. In the end, he finds a middle ground between his original overly masculine self and femininity. In this way, Pixar is creating its "new man." This generic Pixar plot can be seen in Toy Story (1995), Monster's Inc (2001), Cars (2006), Monster's University (2013) and The Incredibles (2004). To me, this is a shock. I always thought of Pixar movies as incredibly unique, so the fact that they all have the same underlying plot is startling. However, I can see where this is an important plot to show.
          Pixar's creation of the "new man" in all of their movies may seem like a lack of creativity, but it's truly just that important of a message. Pixar tells us that men don't have to act or look like Prince Charming to be in Disney movies anymore. Pixar finally gives a place to the average man. This "new man" accepts the idea of a gender spectrum in which feminine qualities in a man are as normal as masculine qualities in a man. In my opinion, Pixar is doing a great job at preaching gender equality and if they have to sacrifice inventive plots for it, so be it.

Happy Birthday Walt Disney!

    This past thursday was Walt Disney's 112th birthday. Check out this super cool segment of What's My Line where Walt Disney was a guest star!