The Lion King Cast Breaks into Song Mid-flight

Lol I would die. This would actually make my week if I was on this flight. Watch the cast of The Lion King burst into song mid-flight. 

http://blogs.disney.com/disney-playlist/2014/04/01/you-have-to-see-this-video-of-the-cast-of-the-lion-king/?cmp=SMC%7Cblgomd%7CPlaylistMarch%7CFB%7CLionKingPlane-Playlist%7CInHouse%7C040114%7C%7C%7Cesocialmedia%7C%7C%7C

Analysis of Sarah E. Turner's Article "Blackness Bayous and Gumbo: Encoding and Decoding Race in a Colorblind World" in Princess and the Frog

Sarah E. Turner's Article "Blackness, Bayous, and Gumbo: Encoding and Decoding Race in a Colorblind World" explores the extent to which Tiana's race influences her character and her reception by the audience in Disney's The Princess and the Frog. She presents a lot of great ideas and does a great job of being objective and respectful of various opinions and interpretations of the film.

She starts off by explaining Stuart Mill's analysis of production and reception; she explains that decoding a text "enables an alternate reading in opposition to the dominant reading embedded within the discourse of the text" (84). Using this as a framework for her essay, Turner asserts that the dominant message of The Princess and the Frog is one of colorblindness meaning that Tiana just happens to be a princess that is black, not a black princess. Turner contradicts this popular reading of Princess Tiana by asserting that Disney's intention was to diversify its princesses; she supports this by saying "Tiana must be black in the same way that Mulan was Chinese, Jasmine was Arabic, ..." (84). I completely agree that it is foolish to suggest that race is not a factor in The Princess and the Frog. Like, Are you kidding me??? It's set in 1920s New Orleans, Tiana slaves away in a restaurant all day while her white best friend Lottie gets everything she wants without any work, Tiana lives in the ghetto, she OF COURSE can't get her shit handed to her like most Disney princesses, she has to work SUPER hard (and I mean actual work) to achieve her dream of owning her own restaurant, and she is told that a "woman of her background" has no business owning a restaurant/can't handle it. Now tell me that race isn't a factor.

I appreciate how Turner explores a view that displaces race. For instance, she understands and references arguments that illustrates how Tiana's desire to own a restaurant and her success in the end "reaffirms tenets of hard work and capitalism" (86). She also hints that the audience, regardless of color, feels a close connection to Tiana because of the loving, caring nuclear family that we all can relate to. While I understand this appeal, it makes me sad that Disney has to incorporate moments that evoke sympathy, compassion, and understanding from the audience probably in the hopes of being able to look past Tiana's race. Needing to include moments that will make you appreciate and want to root for the black princess. I understand why Disney does this, but it's sad that they have to.

Turner also points out how interestingly Tiana's mom, Eudora is someone that puts her down from her dream. Not necessarily out of malice, but out of love and the intention to protect. Eudora implies that she rather Tiana marry and go out and give her some grand babies than slave every day in the hopes of owning her restaurant one day. Like, okay you should be hella proud that your daughter wants to do more with her life and not just settle for confinement to domesticity. Eudora needs to get her crap together. Okay, random side note though, why do all of their names have to be so out there? Why can't they be names like Jean, or Rebecca, or anything that doesn't sound stereotypically black?

Okay another thing I appreciate about this article is that Turner addresses the lack of discourse on Tiana's physical attributes. Turner supposes that "while a feminist reading of this absence of beauty references would suggest a positive and progressive shift, thus providing little girls with a role model more concerned with material success that physical beauty, the absence becomes more s complex when race is introduced" (89). So true. You can't win either way. The film devoid of beauty references  supports feminist messages while simultaneously being offensive for not letting Tiana receive the physical glorification and praise that every other Disney princess gets. I'm quite offended, seeing that  beauty references for Tiana and depicting her as successful are not mutually exclusive categories. The complete absence of beauty references except for a five word comment from Lottie may offend the audience and imply that black bodies are not beautiful.

Okay, happy she included this point, but IT MADE ME REALLY UPSET because what happened is messed up. Turner writes that for the animated film award at the Oscars, each character gave a brief monologue about their film, yet when it came to The Princess and the Frog, it was Naveen and Louis that appeared. Tiana was "visibly absent and silenced" (92). Like I actually don't understand it. Especially seeing how liberal Hollywood and the film industry is, why is this necessary/how do your exclude the main character of the movie? #sometimesdisneymakesmeupset #butistillloveitforsomereason.

Last thing, the ambiguous skin color of Prince Naveen just kills me every time. Like Disney what are you even doing. I guess I can't criticize seeing that if he's black, people will be all like "why does he have to be black" and "Disney's against miscegenation" while if he's white it'll be like "why can't Tiana be with a black man" or "why is Tiana being the white man's whore." Sadly Disney can't win and I guess I approve with Disney's middle ground color that is "safe and sanitized." I don't think either Disney or audience members are ready for Tiana being set with a clearly identifiable race. Lol we're not there yet.

Overally, I really lied Turner's article and it made think more intently about The Princess and the Frog and anything that leaves me thinking and intrigued gets an A+ in my book! Read her article if you ever have time!



Peace Love Disney :)

What Disney Princess are You?

What Disney princess are you? Take this quiz at http://www.buzzfeed.com/mccarricksean/which-disney-princes-are-you#.dqoZPEbEE.  Lol I got Princess Aurora. Supposedly I am shy and reticent and it takes a while for me to open up, but when I do I am a lifelong friend! Lol actually pretty accurate. Try it!

Peace Love Disney :)

Disney Meets Walking Dead

OMG THIS IS ACTUALLY PERFECT! Who thought Disney characters could look so badass! This artist recreates our beloved Disney characters to be on the show "The Walking Dead." So great. Lol please look at this:

http://www.geeknative.com/45002/disney-characters-survive-walking-dead/

Funny Paused Scenes of Disney Movies

Lol is all I have to say. Check out this post featuring paused scenes of Disney movies. Priceless.

http://www.tickld.com/x/15-reasons-why-you-should-never-pause-a-disney-movie-12-is-priceless

Disney Princesses with Different Races, SO Cool

Artists recreates Disney princesses by changing their race! Not gonna lie, I like some of these new princesses better. Check this out:

http://www.eonline.com/news/541540/an-artist-reimagined-disney-princesses-with-different-races-and-the-results-will-blow-your-mind?cmpid=sn-111021-facebook-na-eonline

Not gonna lie though, Sleeping Beauty looks creepy, the depiction of Asian Cinderella is kind of racist, and Pocahontas is already Native American/a real person??? However, Belle looks SO COOL and SO DOES JASMINE (except ya can't change Raja to Mufasa, duhh)

Hilarious Villainous Snapchats

Just read Buzzfeed's article "23 Fabulous Disney Villain Snapchats" and literally cannot stop laughing. Lol Gaston's tinder pic and Ursula's "all about that bass pick" is priceless. Do read, you will not be disappointed.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/javiermoreno/disney-villain-snapchats?sub=3466720_3953595#.rf1VGJMJJ

Girl goes to Disney EVERY WEEK!

Major props to this mom that hand sews her daughter Disney a TON of Disney costumes and takes her to Disney EVERY week (so envious of this little girl; her life=life i want)! Anyways, her outfits are super cute and she looks adorable modeling them at Disney and you check out the article with al of the pictures! :)

http://www.boredpanda.com/cute-toddler-takes-on-disney-world-characters-as-mini-sized-versions-of-them/


Peace Love Disney :)

Belle Repulsed by Gaston

You TELL 'EM BELLE!!!

*Taken from disneyladieslastnight tumblr post

Lessons and Morals of Beauty and the Beast: Good or Bad?

Looking for a blog post to reference for my research paper, I stumbled across Bayan Jaber's blog post (https://bayanjaber.wordpress.com/ml-papers-2/critique-of-disneys-beauty-and-the-beast/) analyzing Beauty and the Beast. Viewing the film with an objective, open mind, I feel Bayan Jaber introduces cool points that most viewers of B & B fail to consider.

For instance, Bayan suggests that kids may be negatively influenced by the submissive portrayal of women in Beauty and the Beast. For instance, Bayan illustrates that Belle is bossed around by the Beast; he confines her to a room and refuses to let her eat unless she eat with him. Despite this, Belle continues to be friendly to the Beast and is tolerant of his poor behavior. I agree with Jaber that Belle is experiencing emotional abuse and is letting the Beast dictate her life (not that she has much of a choice). Though the movie ends with a compassionate, humbled Beast and Belle's getting her happy ending, it is easy to overlook the violence Belle suffered by the Beast in the beginning of the film. Jaber hints that this may cause children to unconsciously accept this relationship between Belle and the Beast. While this is true, even more so I feel that it serves to disempower Belle and convey that patriarch dominates. That the needs of the male comes first and the women is subject to these needs regardless of her own. Having research feminism and empowerment in Belle in B & B, I agree with authors that argue against a feminine portrayal of Belle and propose that suffering domestic violence is okay if it means pleasing your man. You can argue that this is reading too much into the film and that the Beast eventually changes his behavior for the better; however it is the lack of acknowledgment given to this abuse and the manner in which this abuse is excused by the Beast finding his soft side (with the help of Belle), that makes this problematic.

Also, I REALLY liked Jaber's interpretation of inner beauty and appearance in the film. We admire the Beast for becoming compassionate and gaining the love of Belle, thus it is nice to see that he can return to his human form and live a happy life with Belle. Jaber, on the other hand, offers that if the Beast really grew to appreciate inner beauty, why would he need to go back to being a "handsome prince"? The point of the film is supposed to be that looks are not important, however the Beast's good looks are restored at the conclusion of the film. His "inside" being good corresponded to his "outside" looking good, thus Jaber calls Disney out for implying that "people beautiful on the inside aren't attractive on the outside..." After considering Jaber's viewpoint, I feel B & B would have been more meaningful if Belle's declaration of her love for the Beast was too late and both her and the Beast decided that it didn't matter as long as they loved each other. 

I enjoyed reading Jaber's post because it is easy not to pick up on these subtleties and alternate interpretations when you've watched the movie over and over, considering it to be an innocent children's film that wanted to show a cute love story. As innocent as Disney may seem, commentaries like these may suggest otherwise and I look forward to watching more of my favorite Disney films with an objective eye!

Peace Love Disney :)

Disney Movies Interrelated!

Entertaining the linkage between Disney movies is crazy to me! How do I miss these things?!? Check out this link yourself and see if you're convinced!

http://disneytheory.com/2013/08/25/thedisneytheory/

Depiction of Characters in Disney's Mulan. Are they Accurately Portrayed?

So I saw this blog post on stereotypes and questioning of feminine empowerment in Mulan. Titled, Disney's Mulan: A Dark Film Rife with Racism, Sexism, and Questionable Morals (check out the link here: https://disneyminna.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/disneys-mulan-a-dark-film-rife-with-racism-sexism-and-questionable-morals/), blogger Minna introduces some interesting perspectives on the main characters.

For one, I always thought (and still think) that the Emperor, Chi Fu was so chill and badass! Like so badass! He has chill facial expressions, chill lines, and his presence is commanding (okay isn't he like a Chinese version of Dumbledore???)! Minna, on the other hand, acknowledges the more stereotypical aspects of Chi Fu that are often dismissed due to comedic effect. She writes that he "is drawn like a racist caricature...has pronounced and heavy accents...is annoying and pompous...sounds like he is quoting from slips of paper inside fortune cookies." Honestly, everything she writes is so true. His wise yet cliche sayings can be construed as cheesy and all-knowing and his voice has a strong Chinese accent compared to the neutral voiced Mulan and Li Shang. Coupled with his visibly darker skin compared to Mulan and Li Shang, his depiction seems caricatured. Should he have been less visibly Asian (like Russell in Up) or would it have been offensive to do so? Either way, Disney can't win but it's fun to ponder these things!

Similarly, the depiction of Shan Yu as animal-like/inhuman is not cool. Minna points to his "grey-face and yellow-eyes with long, pointed fingernails like claws, and pointed fang-like teeth...[he has' seemingly super-human strength, and is constantly hanging from trees and roofs..." Minna sarcastically hints that it's okay for Disney to do this of course because he's a villain, however, considering America's intense, disastrous histories with Asian countries, this could be more of a biased and ignorant image of how "bad Asians" are perceived.

Lastly, I agree with Minna that Mulan is empowered during the film for being the bravest, most courageous soldier and being able to hang (and outshadow) the guys, I disagree that Mulan's only successes were derived from being male. At the end of the movie, she has transitioned back into her girl self for the defeat of Shan Yu and the recognition she receives from China for saving the country. In this sense, I think it would be better to state that her initial acceptance into the army and the training she received there was only made possible due to her male disguise, seeing that the movie concludes with an admiration and honoring of female Mulan. 

Anyways, overall I thought this was an intriguing blog post that drew my attention to stereotypes I had not seen before. Check it out if you have time/watch Mulan cause who doesn't want to watch Mulan!


Peace Love Disney :))

Does Race Play a Big Role in Disney's Princess and the Frog?

Live Blog on The Princess and the Frog!

To start, LOVE this movie! The jazzy tunes and cuteness of Tiana and Naveen warm my heart :). However, watching this films with a critical, racial eye, there are issues already within the first five minutes.

Why is it that Tiana has to be poor and live in the dumps of New Orleans while her best friend, Charlotte, is living large and wants for nothing?? Even though the two are super cute and seem equals at first because of their youthful and innocent relationship, there is a clear line drawn already. Eudora, Tiana's mom, slaves away taking care of the children and sewing dresses, yet she can't shower Tiana with gifts like Charlotte's hardworking father can (he's also dressed in all white all the time, reminds me of imperialism and white man's burden).

Similarly, Tiana's struggle is that of the stereotypical struggle. She is on the bottom of the food chain because of her poor status and needs to overcome some hurdle or work super hard in order to make her dreams come true. Charlotte lives an easy life and is rewarded continuously, while Tiana slaves away working as a waitress and gets by on crappy tips. It's just frustrating because the black person is usually always depicted as being challenged in some way and needing to overcome that challenge to be successful. I remember when I became valedictorian of my high school, many often asked me who influenced me and motivated me to work hard? I was very confused, because it seems people made the assumption that I had to overcome some hurdle in school or be inspired by sometime to do well, however, there was no challenge that I had to overcome to want to do well. I worked hard like everybody else, however in a predominantly white town, many assumed that I needed a rags to riches type story. Tiana's plot reminds me of this.

Also, aside from being portrayed domestically, it is problematic that Tiana's future of owning her own restaurant lies in in the hands of the white man. Despite her success in acquiring the money to startup her restaurant, she is still shut down by two white realtors. She is not in control of her future and happiness, the white man is.

When Tiana envisions what this abandoned, dirty property could like it if it were transformed into her restaurant, Eudora reminds her that what is important in life is love, not necessarily living out your dream. This message reinforces this idea that the black girl likely won't be accepted by her society, limiting her chances of success, however, she'll still be content with her life is she can love!

Fenner and Fenner, the two white realtors, imply that a person of Tiana's background likely has no business trying to run a restaurant when they tell her another buyer has topped her offer. Disney here is clearly saying something about race; though they address it here, is that enough?

Lottie wishes on a star, her wish of Prince Naveen coming to her party comes true. Tiana wishes on a star, she becomes a frog. Hmmm, something wrong there.

Let's not forget the jazz stereotype. As seen in Disney's Dumbo and The Jungle Book, animals voiced by black characters or that are depicted as black erupt into jazzy show tunes and dance giddily. The jazz that emerged in 1920s America that was largely associated with blacks is another stereotype portrayed in the movie. Jumping off of black stereotypes, despite the animation of characters, the broke, Southern accents of Ray (the firefly) and Lewis (the alligator) suggest blackness, though there may be no "proof." Fact of the matter, most wouldn't hear these characters voices in the middle of the bayou and think that they weren't black.

Okay, one thing that I absolutely HATE is that the Disney movie with the Black princess has to take place in the south and in the bayou. You want to say that Tiana is simply a princess that is black, however, when you look at Belle, Aurora, Cinderella, and other classic Disney princesses, they are not in a setting that defines their whiteness. The southernness and jazzy-like, wild nature of the bayou in conjunction with being black, however, does imply a connection to race. Why couldn't Tiana speak in a neutral accent like the majority of Disney princesses and be some submissive, oppressed princess, born a royal, living in a castle, and awaiting her prince?

One last thing that I find interesting about this movie is Mama Odie. Tiana journeys through the bayou to find Mama Odie and seek help to be transformed back into a human. Interestingly, Mama Odie, the person that is supposed to restore Tiana's hopes and wishes, is decked out in white. This prevalence of whiteness and its connections to success imply to me that whiteness is necessary for Tiana's wishes to be accomplished.

As much as criticize this movie, I still love it. The characters are so lively and personable, the music is FANTASTIC, and I think Tiana and Naveen=cutest couple ever. If ya haven't seen it, please watch. There are many aspects that you can identify and critique, however, it is still a great children's movie.


Peace Love Disney :))

Unanswered Questions of Disney

LOL the shit that you overlook in Disney but notice when a Buzzfeed article points it out to you!!! Check out this article on the unanswered questions. Best one by fair, #12: Why did the enchantress basically curse an 11 year-old for being a brat?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/samstryker/why-disney-why#.jhLLbpjpp

B & B Putting Men or Women First?

       I'm currently looking at sources that analyze feminism in Disney for a paper I have to write and I stumbled across this really cool book called "The Princess Story: Modeling the Feminine in Twentieth-Century American Fiction and Film." Author Sarah Rothschild analyzes a princess's story and discuss the dialogue of Disney films on feminism and cultural anxieties and stereotypes surrounding girls and women. For my paper, I'm analyzing feminism and gender stereotypes within Disney's Beauty and the Beast, and was looking for a source that examine's Belle's role in the film.

In a segment titled "The Precedence of Romance," Rothschild offers a really unique and interesting perspective on Belle in relation to the Beast. Discussing how Belle spends the majority of her time "civilizing and gentling" the Beast, she sets the stage for the view of Belle as domestic. She takes this argument even further and extracts a quote from Jane Yolen and Heidi E.Y Stemple that I feel is a cool perspective on Belle and the Beast. The quote reads, "this story teaches our daughters exactly how to become battered wives. Its message...states clearly that no matter how beastly and cruel the monster you live with is, somewhere there is a prince hide, and that if you just love him enough during his 'nice' periods, that prince will appear" (247).

I had never considered the relationship between Belle and the Beast through this lens. While I did suggest a submissive role played by Belle and assert that she functions to "fix" the Beast, I never considered that Beauty and the Beast advocates a message of "nurturing men until their 'true' goodness arises," as Susan Jeffords puts it. That women should endure abuse and deal with the ugliness of relationships until they see a soft side of men that is tolerable and capable of love. I really like this argument because not only does it depict a patriarchal domination but it looks past the illusions of animation and can pinpoint the segments of Beauty and the Beast that encourage female's putting up with the male's struggles and abuse because deep down all men have lovable sides.

Another cool point that Rothschild poses is that Belle is given no reasonable man to love. Gaston is a narcissistic and selfish man that views Belle as no more than a submissive, pleasing wife while the Beast is barely human and harsh-tempered. The absence of a "normal" or "reasonable" option for Belle to love and the presence of men on extreme ends of the romantic spectrum suggests that Belle is forced to settle. I thought this was really interesting because we often view Belle as overcoming the superficiality of love and finding her happily ever after with the love of her life, but it is often easy to overlook the work that Belle had to do on the Beast before loving him. She had to teach him manners and first endure his emotional abuse and dictatorial mannerisms (i.e. ordering her to dinner, making Belle stay in the castle in exchange for her father leaving, not being able to explore the West Wing). The Belle seems so appealing because he is literally contrasted by the worst possible man on the planet, Gaston, however, I feel it is valid to assert, that "the Beast could only have been made reasonable and effective by visualizing a worse man [Belle] could have chosen" (Jeffords 170).

Furthermore, Rothschild offers a refreshing and new perspective on Belle's character in Beauty and the Beast and draws on various insightful sources that work to enhance her argument. Definitely recommend this book if you can get your hands on it!



Peace Love Disney :)

Questioning of Flynn's "Fat and the Land: Size Stereotypes in Pixar's Up"

Kate Flynn's "Fat and the Land: Size Stereotyping in Pixar's Up"... interesting is a good word to describe this article. In this article, Flynn analyzes "childhood obesity" portrayed in Up and displays the clash between the fat boy and the aesthetics of nature. While I felt that Flynn started off with a compelling argument, she draws in several irrelevant sources and pieces of evidence that reduced the credibility of her argument. Similarly, there were many spots where she extrapolates too much, drawing too many assumptions from things that were meant to be simple. 

Flynn opens with a comparison to Wall-E, emphasizing that both movies "pay close attention to bodily fat" (435). She notes that Wall-E most indolent characters are "overdeveloped,""large, round and soft," and "gelatinous blobs" (Stanton and Reardon 27-34). Flynn depicts Wall-E largely as a commentary on obesity, though its main message is to illustrate the negative consequences of consumerism and its potential damages. While I understand why Flynn focuses only on the instances where Wall-E applies to obesity, she doesn't do the movie's overall message justice. She should accurately represent the movie for what it is than twist it unjustly to fit her argument.

It is important that Flynn includes Pixar's notion that "body shape is a key part if conveying the essence of characters' personalities." This sets the stage for her argument concerning Russell's "obesity" and how it relates to his personality.

Flynn juxtaposes Russell's body with Ellie and Carl's body. She details Ellie's "long, narrow body" and her dynamic actions and Carl's rounded limbs that lead to his clumsiness; however, she notes that he thins with age, matching the body needed to be adventurous and explore. Russell, a chubby eight-year old, according to Flynn is "ill-suited to the outdoors because of his size" (436). He's a wilderness explorer, yet Flynn argues that he struggles with the outdoors, complains about the length of walks, and is unable to correctly put the tent together. Thus, somehow from this she deduced that fat people are "clumsy, over-reliant on home comforts, and unappreciative of the natural landscape" (436). ??. Not sure I understand the logic Flynn used to make that point. Firstly, Russell is a young boy who has not yet lost his baby fat and is still a bit chubby. While he may be bigger for his age, he is not necessarily obese and his chubbiness should not be reason for his "ineptitude" in the outdoors. Children at that age tend to be impatient, lazy, and one for instant-gratifcation, thus it MAKES TOTAL SENSE that he's tired of walking miles on miles and complains incessantly. Okay and Flynn hints that Russell's obesity causes him to be unappreciative of the aesthetics of the landscape that surrounds him; essentially, "Russell's fatness excludes him from the national identity constructed in Up" (438). Translation: Russell's fatness means laziness and laziness means he can't appreciate beauty in nature. Forreal??? He is an EIGHT YEAR OLD BOY! What child that age truly can appreciate and understand the beauty of nature and nature's importance at that age? Of course Russell can because he is an experienced adult and has been aspiring to experience Paradise Falls almost his entire life, but how can you compare an experienced old man's view of nature to that of a child who still has so much to learn??? If ya couldn't tell this point definitely irked me. 

Okay, another point that made absolutely no sense. Flynn ties Russell's Asian-American identity to Kant's concept that Asian American explorers who could not own property and were incapable of appreciating the sublime because it did not pertain to their "ethnicity and country of origin" (439). Thus, because Russell is an Asian-American, (qualifying him as not fully American??) he can't appreciate American landscape? That is racist on so many levels and establishes a multicultural conflict that is not necessary by any means. Also, Flynn tying in Immanuel Kant's view on aesthetics completely lost me and I thought it was so irrelevant to say the least? 

And a direct contradiction! Flynn, pardon my French, has been shitting on Russell's fatness this entire  time, but then says that his fatness is "in part rendered normative because [Russell] is still a child. Endowed with a child's body, his fatness can be constructed as cute"(440). Enough said. 

Lastly, Flynn asserts that "Russell is positioned to resemble this othered land more than he is the explorer"  because the "Bible, as any good Puritan would know, refers to the land as fat" (269; Gen. 45:17-18). The bible verse actually has nothing to do with people being fat, it just implies that the land has substance and is something that is resourceful and of use. This is another instance where Flynn twists the meanings of texts to fit her argument. 

Overall, wasn't a fan. Up is a great movie and the interpretations of it in scholarly article's such as Flynn's don't do it justice and overanalyze the simplicity and beauty of Pixar movies.

Peace Love Disney :))

Loophole's inTyler's "Home is Where the Heart is: Pixar's Up"

Dennis Tyler's article "Home is Where the Heart is: Pixar's Up" is an interesting piece. He poses great ideas concerning the life-lessons and values depicted in Up, however he goes on several tangents throughout his piece that reduce the substance of his argument. Intertwining issues of the white man's burden, drawing heavily on race when it was not necessary, and reducing the independence and adventurous persona of Ellie to that of a domestic wife drew attention away from the true messages of the movie.

Before diving into the lows of Tyler's article, I would like to address certain aspects that I appreciated. Tyler opens his articles with critic reviews on Up, establishing its widespread appeal and general acceptance by the public. Similarly, he sets the stage for Up by broadening into the world of Pixar; he demonstrates that Pixar truly seeks to bring "life" into their animation and portray family as a "grouping of individuals who care for each other whether technically related or not" (269). He supports this well with evidence from other well-known Pixar movies like Chicken Little and Toy Story, effectively drawing on the nostalgia and sense of family in the Disney community that most of us treasure. Lastly, I liked how Tyler detailed the logic behind animation, illustrating its twelve most prominent principles and the enormous power that animation has over depicting reality (i.e. using and reinforcing cultural stereotypes). I felt that the combination of these segments made for a great introduction, however I feel that Tyler's argument went downhill from here. 

Tyler's take on Ellie's relationship with Carl is completely misguided. He is correct in depicting Ellie as the talkative and energetic extrovert who seeks adventure while Carl is an adventurous introvert who is not as outgoing, however, he shifts this clear understanding of Ellie and Carl by asserting that Ellie's spirit is tamed by Carl's practicality, suggesting a silencing of Ellie's voice. For anyone who watched the film, it is SO clear that this is not true. Ellie brings substance to Carl's life and lends him the voice that he lacked when they were children. Her passion for experience and living life to the fullest is what get's Carl out of his comfort zone and makes the pair a mutual partnership that seeks exploration and wonder. If anything, it is Ellie that is responsible for making the majority of Carl's life so emotionally and mentally fulfilling. Tyler backs up his argument against this by stating that Carl forces childhood on Ellie, envisioning babies in the sky and replacing Ellie's own vision with his own. Except, in the movie, Carl initially sees the baby in the sky, but Ellie is the one who then envisions a sky full of babies, thus, the decision to pursue having a child was mutual and equally wanted, not one-sided and forced. Additionally, Tyler asserts that Ellie's body "defines" her; she is the "catalyst for Carl's sexual awakening" and is a slave to domesticity (274). I was extremely annoyed by this because Tyler reduces Ellie's life and fulfillment to being impregnated and helping Carl changes his ties, when it is obvious that she represented much more. She got to live a normal, fulfilling, happy life with her love and enjoyed life's spirit and offerings in her daily experiences. Though she is unable to fulfill her lifelong dream of going to Paradise Falls, she still possessed a spirit that stayed with us throughout the entire movie. Now interestingly, despite having accused Up for portraying Ellie in a restricted and submissive manner, he asserts that Ellie is the "true spirit of adventure in the film." (274). ??? WHAT??? Dude is directly contradicting himself. Literally asserts that Ellie's spirit is repressed by Carl one minute and a paragraph later implies that her spirit is present an undeniable. Not a fan of this.

Another aspect of the article that I didn't like is the assumption that Up is the "white man's" story. He relies heavily on the assumption of whiteness and it's dominance, saying that the white man rules over the other characters and that his desires must become their desires as well. He supports this also by saying that Russell, an Asian-American character, looks white alongside Carl and "becomes covered Carl racially" (275). Ermm no. Like not even. I hate when people try to incorporate issue of ethnicity and race when it is not warranted. Just because Russell does not appear to have Asian origins does not imply that his ethnicity is overshadowed by Carl's whiteness. What if Disney is just trying to display that Asian-Americans don't have to be assigned the stereotypical Asian characteristics that we see today. If anything, I think Up is just a progressive movie that's defying the racial stereotypes we see today and the inability to distinguish Russell's Asian ethnicity is demonstrative of appearance not defining who we are. Plus, the whole notion of white man's burden is misplaced, seeing that Carl simply had a wish that he sought to fulfill and the people that he encountered along the way voluntarily came along for the ride. 

Okay, and lastly, WTF is with the mention of The Princess and the Frog?!?! That actually really upset me because Tyler has no basis for an argument concerning African Americans in Up!!!! Like no! First off, his mention of "African Americans in the film" as if they play a major role in the film is complete crap! There is legit one African-American girl in the film for LITERALLY five seconds that stares out her window in awe as she sees as freaking house with a mound of balloons floating in the air. Like WHO WOULDN'T be looking up in wonder?!?! Tyler spins this as a symbol of unimaginable hope and wonder that the African-American lacks and will only dream of but the white man can fulfill. NOT EVEN!!! And the comparison to The Princess and the Frog is that the lack of social realism and the deracialization of Tiana's story assumes a story where race is unimportant. However, it is in Up??? Where an innocent African-American girl who's reaction to something unrealistic was COMPLETELY normal has to be somehow tied to her race??? No.

And in addition to The Princess and the Frog, Tyler literally mentions eight different movies within the last couple of paragraphs of the article. He introduces literally eight different movies with eight different points for each movie when he should be tying together the loose ends of his argument and ending with a cohesive statement that summarizes his article. Definitely think he should have just kept Up as the main focus of the conclusion but that's just me!

So those are my thoughts on Tyler's "Home is Where the Heart is: Pixar's Up"! Definitely check out the article and see what you think!

Peace Love Disney :)

Female Empowerment??

Yesss strong females in Disney!!! Despite the clear gender stereotypes and lack of uniqueness that Disney unfortunately applies to its women, lets check out the few examples of girl power in Disney!

http://blogs.disney.com/oh-my-disney/2014/12/02/what-disney-movies-taught-us-about-girl-power/

One Person, Two Disney Characters!

Legit mind blown!!!! The fact that one person sang both Mulan and Princess Jasmine's parts and Cogsworth's voice is Governor Radcliffe's?! I can't fathom this.

http://blogs.disney.com/oh-my-disney/2014/08/17/we-bet-you-didnt-know-these-characters-were-voiced-by-the-same-person/

Pixar Movie you haven't seen? Check this out

These concise descriptions of Pixar are actually on point.

http://blogs.disney.com/oh-my-disney/2014/10/24/every-pixar-movie-in-140-characters-or-less/

How I feel about Frozen 2...

Not gonna lie but this is how I feel about the next Frozen movie....the hype from the last one literally just subsided and now people are going to argue that it's better than the classic Disney movies (which it's not!!!) I'm gonna need to brace myself

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikespohr/17-thoughts-parents-have-upon-hearing-about-the-frozen-seque

Historically Accurate Disney Princesses

Check out what Disney princesses should look like according to the time period of the movie! Would definitely make for interesting Halloween costumes...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/eugeneyang/if-disney-princesses-were-historically-accurate#.ijAjAv3vv

Belle is by far the worst, her hair isn't even brunette!!!

Live Blog on Disney Pixar's Up!

Live Blog on Disney Pixar's Up!

Young love!!! Why are they so cute!!! I've never seen this movie but I heard the first few minutes are hella sad and if they kill the little girl I might not be able to finish this/get through it without crying.

This move is funny despite the awry direction I know its heading in. Already the juxtaposition of loudness and silence has made ma laugh so hard. The girl giving a mouthful and the guy saying literally nothing. And when they get married, the bride's side being super rowdy and cheery and loud and then they cut to his side and it's the quietest clapping. Aahahah love it

OMG DA F**K! I was literally just smiling hysterically at the babies in the sky and then two seconds later she miscarries?! But it's a DISNEY MOVIE! ;(( I already can't even

Can I please be them. This movie reminds me of The Notebook because of its cuteness but on steroids cause their love is literally shown in eight minutes and she dies in the end. Whyyyyyy

I've never cried so hard at Disney movie before. What is this.

Love the comic relief in this movie.

Lol this kid thoooo...so cute. Ahaha does he wanna say "Good afternoon" one more time or is he good? :)

They kicked him out of his house for that?! BS! And cardinal rule, cute old adorable widowed absolutely cute men that look like Martin Scorsese should never be taken to court or kicked out their house. Now that's a felony!

This is without doubt one of the best music scores Disney has ever made. The music literally makes you smile and cry within seconds. And the motif of the balloons is genius.

Boy scout just entered the flying house--this is the beginning of a beaaaautiful friendship!

His eyes when he sees Paradise Island!!! :)))) I've never felt that a movie was so adorable and absolutely depressing at the same time.

Why must this kid be so dumb. So innocent yet so stupid. Classic Disney.

Okay I can definitely do without the dogs. They're not doing anything for me so far. They're not comparing to the animated Disney animals that I know and love! Then again I don't typically watch Pixar movies soooo....lets keep watching and keep an open mind!

Aww Carl is totally fangirling after seeing Charles, gotta love it when he smiles like a fool.

Urmmm..PLOT TWIST! Yooo why must this guy be so cray/serial-killer like. Lesson learned: never trust a creepy old man with a hunched back and pit bulls for friends. In all seriousness though I'm really sad! I wanted Paradise Island to be perfect for him!

Lol I love how they make the boy scout seem so stupid but he's actually so deep! Who knew?

Okay I know I already mentioned the score but it's so clever how the vary the same segment of music according to the current tone of the events/seriousness of the situation, gahh!

Disney always somehow tying morals into the storyline. #loveit #alsokindahate it #hehasarighttobebitterandsavehishouse

Lol who knew squirrel was such a powerful word!

To think that the bird annoyed me in the beginning! I thought the bird was nonessential to the plot but it actually made it even cuter! This movie is legit my new inspiration.

Everyone should watch "Up", it is uplifting and emotional and cute and makes me reconsider my lack of fondness for Pixar!


Professor Andres, thanks for assigning this movie!



Peace Love Disney :))

Timon and Pumbaa's Alternative Lifestyle According to Sweeney

     While I thought it was super interesting to read an interpretation of Timon and Pumbaa's relationship as gay-lovers, I completely disagree with the argument made. Sweeney's "Timon and Pumbaa's Alternative Lifestyle Dilemma" depicts Timon and Pumbaa as an obviously gay couple that fails to meet the heteronormative standards set by Disney and challenges the conservative lifestyle of Mufasa and the other lions of Africa. While Sweeney definitely gave evidence from The Lion King to back up her claims, the evidence used to support these claims was way too much of a stretch.

For instance, Sweeney uses this quote said by Timon, "'You gotta put your behind in the past' (i.e put your past behind you); it's the present that matters, not who you once were, but who you are now" to support her claim that the issue of responsibility and identity is an important aspect of families, especially gay families...like, WHAT? Is she forreal connecting the identity struggles commonly found among gay people in relation to their selves and their families to Timon's reinforcement of a carefree philosophy??? Wayyy to much of a stretch for me.

Additionally, I feel like a lot of the evidence she uses to support her claim that Timon and Pumbaa are cleary a gay couple can easily be used to describe two friends that are simply close (hence a bromance!). Sweeney for one, follows Timon saying that Pumbaa is his "bestest best friend"with "these two characters are obviously a same-sex couple." How is a boy calling another boy his "bestest best friend" indicative of homosexuality? To me, the light-heartedness, carefreeness, and simple-mindedness of Timon and Pumbaa serves to reiterate their youthful, boyish personas. She also supports her assertion of their homosexuality by including that "they live together, they work together, and long after their relationship has been affirmed, they raise a child together... ."While I understand how Sweeney twists this in favor of Timon and Pumbaa being gay parents, the first things she describes, living and working together, can be characteristic of any pair of friends. Her saying that "their relationship has been affirmed" is unclear and unsupported, as there is no obvious definition of their relationship. Lastly, while she equates Timon and Pumbaa's relationship to Simba to parent-child, their relationship could easily be that of three good friends. One thing I feel important to note is that while Simba matures throughout the movie, essentially turning into another Mufasa, Timon and Pumbaa's appearance is unchanging; they show little signs of aging and retain their boyish traits for the duration of the movie. To me, Timon and Pumbaa's lack of change in the appearance despite Simba's dramatic transformation is indicative of the timelessness of youth and how their lack of physical change is reflective of their kiddish, fun-loving personalities. If anything, I would think that Simba is more parent to them, not only because of his physical maturity but also due to the duties and responsibilities expected of him (unlike Timon and Pumbaa).

Similarly, I feel that this bromance rather than homosexual relationship possessed by Timon and Pumbaa is further iterated at the conclusion of the movie when they dress in hula costumes and dance enthusiastically to distract the hyenas away from Simba. Sweeney likens their actions to that of a drag queen dancing dramatically...again, way too much of a stretch. Can't it just be a consequence of the playful nature of Timon and Pumbaa, two characters that legit give no f**ks (I MEAN THEY EVEN SING A WHOLE SONG ABOUT GIVING NO F**KS)??? If ya couldn't tell, I didn't like this point either.

Another thing I disliked about Sweeney's article is her dependence upon stereotypical views of gay men.  For instance, one of her justifications for Timon and Pumbaa's homosexual relationship is that they are opposites: "Timon is a skeptic, while Pumbaa is sentimental and romantic." To me, its seems that Timon is being portrayed as male while Pumbaa seems to be more feminine; since they're both male and one is slightly feminine they must be gay right?? No, just another stereotype that is yet to be corrected.

One thing I actually AGREE with is the dilemma Sweeney addresses between Simba's "no worries, no responsibilities" attitude (attributed to Timon and Pumbaa) and the "remember your responsibilities" (given by Mufasa and because lions are the on top of the food chain and DUH he's King!). I do agree that the film seems to advocate two completely different philosophies.

Lastly, I think the whole section on the question of Timon being Jewish is completely unnecessary and I feel that she jumped around two much between The Lion King, The Lion King 1 1/2, and the TV show later made with Timon and Pumbaa.

While I know I criticized her a lot, I really did enjoy reading her article. I just felt that it had way too many leaps/stretches between argument and evidence.



Peace Love Disney :)))

This Girl Doesn't Play When it Comes to Disney Princesses!

Lies!!! I clearly know my Disney movies, as this BuzzFeed ranks me as queen of my Disney princesses!!!! :))) All is now right in the world. Can you pair movie quotes with Disney princesses? Take this quiz and find out!!!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/leonoraepstein/which-disney-princess-said-it#.mwEZdmamm

Put to Test Your Disney Movie Knowledge!

Take this Disney Quiz and see how well you know your disney movies!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/danmeth/can-you-identify-a-disney-movie-from-just-some-random-frame#.gvGQ2N3NN

Apparently I'm mediocre when I thought I was great! #5outof10 #bitter.
They do ask super obscure things though so do not be discouraged! I still consider myself to be a dedicated and knowledgeable Disney lover and fan! Peace love Disney :)

Why Hercules=Great Disney Movie

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lizardb1/why-hercules-is-so-underrated-p5jo?sub=3359360_3216812#.hcOMx5B55

Preach to whoever wrote this! Hercules is literally the best Disney movie ever. The music is PHENOMENAL, the muses are THE S**T, the morals are actually pretty great, and the female protagonist Meg is badass, no nonsense, and one of those typical googly-eyed females in Disney movies. Literally the movie is hilarious, largely due to Hades, his two little minions ("if...if is good :)) ) and of course Phil!!! Cry every time Hercules becomes a success at the end and the villagers proudly say, that's Phil's boy! So cute!!! Meg's sass is great and she makes Hercules work for her love, largely because she sold her soul to her previous boyfriend but we can overlook that!!! And lastly, who doesn't love a good take on Greek mythology? I DO!!!!!

Funny Disney Truths!

http://fun.diply.com/omg-facts/hilarious-disney-truths/71502/3

This is actually so horrible but hilarious! Gotta love it though when people are frank with Disney movies and take them so literally. #disneyneverwins but I swear this will make you laugh!

My personal favorites...

#5: Picture of Peter Pan holding out his hand to Wendy to go to Neverland captioned: He's climbing out your windows, snatching your people up!!! Ahahaha literally cried, if you don't remember this reference, watch this video ASAP ()

#7: Pocohantas declares her love for John Smith and the audience is so torn/happy cause they're so gosh darn cute. She says they'll be together forever, but it seems forever is defined as years till the next Englishman comes along. #stillbitterandconfused

#13: LOLOL Jasmine asking Aladdin if it's safe to ride the magic carpet, yet she has a freaking TIGER for a pet!!!! Gotta love the reasoning behind her decisions. #questionable

Live Blog on The Lion King!

Live Blog on The Lion King!!!

• For one, can we just acknowledge that Rafiki is the coolest, most badass characters and can out laugh any character known to man!

Kay, just had to throw that out there before I continued

• Love the Daddy-Son bonding time going on between Mufasa and Simba but it's so testosterone filled! With the deep voices and hunting and you're gonna step into my place today and preserve the patriarchy and rah rah rah!

• Okay I totally see now how Scar is feminized; I feel like I may have subconsciously felt something was different but could never put my finger on it. His very polite and proper laying position/stance, his innocent smirks and facial expressions, his well groomed and girlishly-styled hair totally contributed to this prissy, girly, silently dramatic lion.

• Damn, at times I feel at time Simba and Nala are a bit too close for comfort!

• The hyenas literally make the movie for me. Whoopi=perfection.

• Urghh that ominous, depressing music that they play when Simba and Mufasa are serious but being cute that foreshadows that Mufasa is going to die literally makes me want to cry.

• Ahahaaaha the hyenas retorts towards Scar are priceless: "Oh Scar, its just you, we were afraid it was somebody important!" LOL love it, however in this same scene they inadvertently give Scar the idea to kill Mufasa, thus despite their humor, I hate the hyenas!!!

• I just want to smack Scar playing so innocent and making the vulnerable Simba a fool! SO evil

• I've actually seen this movie no lie probably over fifty times and I always try to refrain from crying when Simba finds his father dead...AND I FAIL EVERY TIME! :(((((

• Whoever thought to create Timon and Pumbaa for comedic relief is literally genius. I go from crying my eyes out with Mufasa's death to laughing hysterically within minutes, that's saying something!

• Okay Simba is cute and young when I'm singing along to Hakuna Matata, look away to grab something, look back and he's A FREAKING ADULT!!!!......da fudge? Now that is definitely what you can call an abrupt transition

• AHAHAHAH just caught something literally for the first time! What are those lights up in the sky? Timon: They're fireflies (in a confident voice). Pumba: I always thought they were balls of gas burning millions of miles away! Ahahahahaha and we say Pumba is dumb

• Rafiki :)))) Makes me wanna have a baboon for a pet

• Nala and Simba <33333333

• Can you feel the love tonight: Best disney song ever.

• I will never tire of the Lion King! 

Peace Love Disney :)

Putnam's Chapter on Transgendered Villains

So I REALLY liked Putnam's chapter on the depiction of Disney villains as transgendered. Not only did she provide a lot of solid and meaningful evidence to support her argument, but also she raised a lot of interesting points that I had never before considered!

To start, I appreciated the anecdote she provides in the beginning of the chapter, relating her interest in transgendered villains to her daughters comment that she "wants to watch one [Disney movie] without a mean lady." I always think it's cool when authors interconnect their argument with personal experiences because it provides more character and in some cases allows for the audience to the relate the author! Similarly, I thought the essay was well organized and structured. She begins with an anecdote, segues into her argument by assigning characteristics to heroines and villains, and then follows this with specific examples from Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, and The Lion King. Everything that she included seemed pertinent to her argument and she did not attempt to put in fluffy, unnecessary details.

In this article, "Mean Ladies: Transgendered Villains," Putnam asserts that Disney story lines "'disrupt and frustrate heterosexuality's dominance' by antagonizing the happily-ever-after of the heroes and heroines" (149). The quote illustrates the purpose of the villain: to destroy all that is good with the characters that we love. Putnam conveys that it is this negativity associated with the villains that causes the anti-heterosexual characteristics presented by villains to be considered bad. Consequently, Disney female villains are masculinized and Disney male villains are feminized.

One thing that I never really paid attention to was the emphasis placed on the outfits of the heroines. Putnam sheds light on the provocative, form-fitting outfits seen on our beloved Disney heroines that accentuate their physical features, in effect enhancing their heterosexual appeal. On the other hand, Disney female villains are often portrayed in a "mannish fashion"--both physically and behavioral--in order to heighten the contrast to the heroine. The ugliness that rests within each Disney female villain is truly insulting, as it does subtly contribute to a hatred towards them that becomes a hatred towards their gender identities and beliefs.

A great example of this is the character Ursula. The article points out the masculinity found in Ursula but illustrates this relation to transgenderism in a really cool way. Putnam addresses the dramatic, flamboyant traits assigned to Ursula that suggest her transgendered nature in offering that "...Ursula's overweight body and tentacles, her deep voice, and the excessive sexualized shimmies are a reminiscent of a drag queen on stage, overly made up and singing, appearing both female and male simultaneously" (155). While I always considered Ursula to be a bit manly, especially because of her deep voice and someone grotesque facial features, I had never thought of Ursula in relation to drag queens. Her over-theatrical and booming persona really does resemble the flamboyant drag queens that we see today; this would be fine had Disney not portrayed her as the villain. I don't doubt that Disney in some way wanted to view homophobia in a negative light, seeing that homophobia was prominent in the early 1930s and Disney is known for maintaining traditional views, but it is really disappointing because this does impact the way kids see things. After taking a closer look at Disney movies, I understand why we should not underestimate the influence that Disney has on the subconscious of youth. Putnam even states that the transgendered characteristics assigned to villains to distinguish between good and evil "becomes a disjointed misinformation telling young children that difference is not okay..." (155). Yes children should know good from bad, however, when you begin to associate that bad with issues of someone's gender identity (i.e being LGBT), you are attempting to shape a child's views towards a completely skewed, ignorant perspective and that is not okay.

Lol enough of my rant, touching on another point, I appreciated the detail Putnam gave to the transgendered descriptions of the characters within movies. Pointing out how Jafar is the only male figure in Aladdin that wears a gown instead of pants and illustrating Scar's failure to secure a female mate despite having absolute means to do so really brought to light things that were not immediately obvious.

Lastly, I enjoyed Putnam's conclusion. In Decoding Disney, we discussed how it's wise to start specific in the conclusion but end broad. She sums her points on transgendered villains in Disney and then transitions into the impact of transgendered appearances on society, specifically that of preschoolers like her daughter (which I particularly like because she's reintroducing the anecdote that she mentioned in the intro), serving to enhance the relation of the audience to her argument.

Overall, I really enjoyed Putnam's analysis and felt that I walked away with a changed perspective of Disney villains!


Peace Love Disney :)))

God I miss my childhood!

If only I had no college work to do and could just watch Disney movies ALL the time! If you're feeling sentimental and want to look at sappy/empowering/life lessons learned from Disney movies...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewziegler/the-lion-king-eerily-predicted-the-great-dress-debate#.slDYpzvzz

The Great Dress's Canine Origins

Lol, leave it to Buzzfeed to somehow relate the most random things to Disney movies. Don't know whether to be grateful for this clever and amusing connection or concerned that someone actually thought of this :)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewziegler/the-lion-king-eerily-predicted-the-great-dress-debate#.slDYpzvzz

Disney's The Little Mermaid vs. Anderson's Fairy Tale

Erm so I completely understand now why my Disney teacher told me to watch The Little Mermaid before reading the fairy tale written by Hans Christian Anderson. How can the girl that we know and love that get's her happily ever after with the handsome Prince Eric actually become sea foam! While the fairy tale I admit is certainly more realistic, as it is arguably difficult to produce true love within three days time, it definitely put a damper on my mood and was much darker than I expected.

One thing that I thought was really interesting was the motive Ariel had for wanting to become a creature of the land in the fairy tale. While meeting a handsome prince was certainly a factor, Ariel is portrayed as wanting to obtain an immortal soul, something that only humans have, so that she can live on forever and not one day turn to foam. However in the movie, Ariel's motives seem a lot more shallow, as she is depicted as wanting to give up everything she has just for a man that she has only glanced at.

Honestly not gonna lie I feel like Ursula doesn't even seem to be that villainous in the Anderson fairy tale. While she does seem to possess the ability to practice dark magic and while it may have dire consequences, she didn't hide these dire consequences from Ariel. She blatantly tells Ariel that her wish will bring her sorrow and even details to Ariel that she will never return to the water again, see her family again, and may end up turning into sea foam. Ursula sells it straight to Ariel, yet Ariel refuses to listen to Ursula's caution and pursues her wish to trade in her tail for human legs. If anything, I think Ariel should be viewed as her own villain, not Ursula, seeing that Ariel's naiveness and ignorance are what ultimately get her in the end.

Another thing that is cool is to trace the maintenance of historical perspectives. Hans Christian Anderson wrote this fairy tale in 1837, and in this fairy tale we see prevalent gender constructions. For instance, when Ariel asks Ursula what she will have left if her voice is taken from her, Ursula replies with: her beautiful form, graceful walk, and expressive eyes. This is similarly reinforced in Disney's The Little Mermaid, as Prince Eric falls in love with Ariel solely based on her looks and appearance (they literally haven't even had one conversation) and their love is still seen as valid.

One thing that I found annoying with Ariel's persona in the Anderson fairy tale is that she was willing to hurt herself to please Eric. For instance, every time Ariel danced for Prince Eric or even walked with him, she felt sharp knives cutting under her feet. This idea that woman should be willing to sacrifice themselves and endure pain in order to please men they barely know was somewhat disturbing and contributed to the dark mood of the tale.

Okay, Ariel literally is given and out when she sees she is failing to make the prince fall in love with her (to kill him, drastic I know but still an out) and she refuses to do so! Like it may seem noble of her, but when you think about it, this is no childhood friend of hers or family member, it's a man who literally sends her mixed signals and then because of his dumb decision not to pick her decides her fate, death. Like Ariel, you literally sacrificed your life for a man WHO DOESN'T LOVE YOU! WHY WHY WHY!!!

And then she turns to sea foam. The end. How lovely an ending. It's funny because Anderson foreshadows this throughout the tale, for instance depicting Ariel amidst the sea foam while watching Prince Eric (hint hint). All in all, I felt that the fairy tale was well written, a bit too dark for my liking, and depressing as hell. I think I'll stick to Disney's happily ever after endings, sorry Anderson.


Peace Love Disney :)

BuzzFeed Calls Out Disney

Gotta love Buzzfeed. They truly tell it like it is. Shoutout to #s 2 and 5 after having to analyze Little Mermaid for my Decoding Disney class; while they make Ariel and Eric look stupid (and I LOVE them both), you gotta admit it's pretty finny! LOL

http://www.buzzfeed.com/danielkibblesmith/the-human-world-is-a-mess?utm_term=.tfYa028X#.sj4bXeaee

Live Blog on The Little Mermaid!

Okay so I know I should hate Ursula, but I gotta admit she's kind of badass, and her laugh thooo (MWAHAHAHHHAHAHA)

Was reading that Sebastian was almost going to have a British accent, laughing so hard right now rethinking all of his lines in a British accent. Would literally change the dynamic of the movie.

LOL okay does anyone wonder how Ariel's red lipstick stays intact while underwater??

Part of Your World! :))))))

Straight up just gonna say now, even though there's so much to criticize in terms of stereotypes and historical generalizations prevalent in Disney films, I just can't criticize The Little Mermaid. Everything about it is literally perfect, the characters are hilarious, the music is on point!, and it's full of light-hearted adventure and the innocence/naivety of youth that most of us can relate to! Me gustaaa

Eric is bae <3333 Dreamiest Disney prince by far!

While this may sound stupid cause The Little Mermaid is animated as we know, Under the Sea is such a well choreographed number!

WHY is Sebastian so adorable; lol legit his toothy smile, shivering scared crab legs, and Jamaican accent together makes my heart melt :)))

Okay, Ariel I love you, however I'm disappointed in your lack of judgment in going off with suspicious af eels with different colored eyes and shady voices, c'mon girl!

Poor Unfortunate Souls= one of best, most intense songs sung by a Disney villain

Ariel: But if I become human, I'll never see my father or my family again; Ursula: But you'll have your man! = :(((( whyyy Disney whyyy

Dude, you can't even blame Ursula because she straight up told Arielle what would come to her if she failed to receive true love's kiss. Ahahah at least she's an honest villain!

Of course the French guy cooks and has a long curly mustache and heavy French accent #typicaldisney #lumieretoo

Disney is so explicit! Having voluptuous women that say words like tramp! Damn!

Lol gotta love Skuttle. He's got his dumb moments but he definitely gets his shit together when need be.

Am I the only one that thinks Ursula getting stabbed by Prince Eric is a tad bit violent for a Disney movie??

And then they live happily ever after! :))) Gotta love The Little Mermaid, even the sequel is pretty great too!


Peace Love Disney :)

Disney Princesses: Drunk Edition

PLEASE look at this link. This is literally the hardest I've laughed in such a long time. Each picture is so on point and I give total props to whoever snapshotted pictures of these princesses that make them look so wasted! Ahaha so perfect, especially #9-13. Promise it won't fail to make you laugh.


http://www.buzzfeed.com/christianzamora/times-disney-princesses-perfectly-summed-up-out-your-nigh#.stwqR3X33

Sexy Simba?

This article is amusing but slightly uncomfortable? I understand Simba's attractiveness but please don't put Simba and sex in the same sentence please.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/laraparker/for-everyone-who-is-sexually-attracted-to-simba#.hjjroxJxx

Random Disney Facts!

Who doesn't love random facts about Disney???

http://www.eonline.com/news/589460/53-fascinating-facts-you-probably-didn-t-know-about-disney-films

#4: Timon and Pumbaa singing Can You Feel the Love Tonight?!? HA I would literally die, as funny as that would be I love the sappy Elton John version, makes the movie :)

#11: Disney being sued by hyena biologists for their portrayal of hyenas! LOL people are literally so desperate for money. What's wrong with the hyenas? Their high pitched laughs or the fact that its ANIMATED FILM AND THEY'RE NOT REAL

#24: If "Part of Your World" was cut from The Little Mermaid, I would have no childhood. Period.

#29: Wait, is it obvious that Aladdin is based of off Tom Cruise or am I blind?

#40: So glad Spice Girls didn't voice the muses in Hercules. Would have ruined the movie, I would have been insulted.

#41: Ariel and Alyssa Milano? ehhh

#50: AHAHA SEBASTIAN BRITISH!!!!! Imagining Under the Sea in a British accent?!?! Ahaha buff said

The Highs and Lows of Shortsleeve

So far, Shortsleeve's "The Wonderful World of the Depression: Disney, Despotism, and the 1930s. Or Why Disney Scares Us" has been my favorite article thus far. He has a very unique and strong opinion, yet he sympathizes with the audience for being skeptical as to what he has to say about the beloved Disney. He acknowledges that criticizing Disney may be discomforting to some, and the mere acknowledgment of this reluctance made him appear to be relatable. 

Here are a few of my points!

• One thing I thought was super cool was when Shortsleeve asks a Disney employee why the 1930s were important to Disney and the employee explains that the Depression was "the Golden Age of America." It's interesting that the Depression was a horrible time for Americans across the country, yet for Disney, the Depression was a time where he peaked in his business and produced his first full animated film. In someways, despite the financial strain, Disney revolutionized vision and imagination within America, continuing to influence us today.

• Also in relation to the Depression, I never even thought that there were connections between Magic Kingdom and the Depression until Shortsleeve illustrates that Magic Kingdom is a complete reversal of the Depression. Unlike the food shortages and failed crops in the 1930s, Magic Kingdom is filled with an abundance of turkey legs, a statue with an overflowing basket of corn, and plenty of shopping opportunities. In a world like Disney where imagination is everything, Disney can recreate a world where people no longer have to want anything and can at least feel for a moment in time that you can have all you ever need.

• I LOVED Shortsleeve's point about Disney being "ideologically stalled" after a violent incident with strikers. Shortsleeve comments that Disney lost his confidence after the physically/emotionally damaging run in with a striker, saying that the spirit of cartoon medium has been destroyed. As a result of this, Disney became stalled in an unfortunate phase of "totalitarian and dictatorial practices." While the point may be stretching, I thought this was a super cool and original view of why certain stereotypes still persist despite the change in times.

• One aspect of the paper that annoyed me was the persistent view that Disney was a dictator and the workplace and wouldn't even allow for workers to socialize. It seems that an array of generalizations are made about Disney's managerial tactics based on the accounts of very few people. Similarly, Shortsleeve's credibility was undermined in my eyes in a segment of the essay when he describes an unrealistic event of a manager handing out dollar bills to employees to set up barriers for a parade. While this may seem plausible hadn't taking place earlier in the 1900s, this took place in July 2001, where a salary system is in place and it is HIGHLY unlikely that people get paid dollar bills for doing individual tasks. While I understand his point that Disney may be corrupt, he used a poor piece of evidence to support this claim. 

• One thing I REALLY REALLY REALLY DISLIKED was the comparison of Walt Disney to Adolf Hitler. Shortsleeve literally backs this up with euphemizing terms, comparing Hitler's replace of "genocide" with "Final Solution" to Disney calling his employees cast members?!?! WTF! This is not nearly enough to say that Disney had some ulterior motive so drastic and immoral that it is comparable to Hitler! Referencing Hitler/comparing someone to Hitler is a big deal and if you're going to make that case, you can't use a half-assed argument. 

• Something I did agree was that Disney portrays servants as more than willing to serve, such as Lumiere in Beauty and the Beast and contented African American slaves in Song of the South. Very unrealistic and insulting classist claims are made here, implying that we should ignore activism and attempts for change by justifying a reduction of sympathy for people who don't mind doing the grunt work of society.

• Another insightful point made by Shortsleeve is the contract that Americans enter with Disney that seems contradictory: "...in order to participate in and enjoy much of Disney's 'magic' consumers must be willing to suspend and/or give up some basic American freedoms. He states in a unique way that while inspiring vision and a form of "magic" that captures our hearts, we must also accept the bias and the constructions made by Disney that for instance standardize societal roles and hinder what one can do based upon gender/race.

• Lastly, I appreciated Shortsleeve's recognition of the overemphasis Disney places on democracy in attempts to mask it's very undemocratic nature. He states "...{Disney} consistently fails with democracy. This failure might indicate a lack of conviction. Such insincerity might explain the maudlin over performance of many patriotic attractions." It's amusing to thing that a company that many think to epitomize America fail to embody it's most important values. It does make you rethink visits at Disney parks; you assume that the glorification of it all is related to fantasy and imagination, however, people like me tend not to see the politics and essentially, the "trying way too hard" part of Disney that comes off as fake.

Essentially, Shortsleeve had really great moments and some that did not impress me. I will say that out of all of the articles I have read thus far in Decoding Disney, Shortsleeve is the only one that made me understand why people dislike Walt Disney.

Anyways, Stay tune for more!

Peace Love Disney! :)))

Live Blog on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: 

• Excuse me but has she just ingested helium? Literally gasped when I heard her voice and then thought God I have to watch 80 more minutes of that voice?!? Good thing she falls asleep at some point :)

• Love how she sings a whole song about wishing to find the man she loves, and when a man appears seconds after she legit runs away.

• Interesting to compare Snow white's eyes to the Queen's, white Snow White's being so round and small, while the Queen's eyes are so wide and her iris is literally a dot.

• Love how's she's having conversations with mute animals--at least in Cinderella they make the animals more interesting and assign them voices/personalities! It's interesting to wonder who had the idea to animate/personify the animals in a film and not just the people.

• Lol she just ran through the woods, trees, river, git hit by flying animals, and collapses on dirt in the forest, yet she wakes up with her clothes, hair, and makeup still in tact. Typical.

• Of course she needs to be so concerned with cleaning dishes and sweeping floors when she walks into dwarves' house--complete reinforcement of cult of domesticity. But don't know why I'm surprised, that's the 30s for ya!

• Dwarves sing "digging is what we like to do" and are portrayed as happy finding tons of jewels in mines, yet history tells us the converse of this: miners had terrible working conditions/wages and we know that finding bucket loads of diamonds and jewels on daily basis was not the case...

• Urghhh just have to interject and say WHY MUST SNOW WHITE BE SO JOLLY ALL THE DAMN TIME

• Snow White literally is there to instruct a lesson on morals

• Haven't seen this movie in years and never made the connect that Dopey is called Dopey because he is mute and is portrayed as dumb because of it, not cool.

• Okay, so why must Snow White be so stupid, don't we know not to accept things from strangers (especially crazy looking old women in black) ! I mean c'mon, even the birds know something's going on!

Movie's over. Okay that was rough not gonna lie, will admit I fell asleep a couple of times, definitely remember why I haven't seen that one in years :)

Thank you to the person that created this. Words need not be said, the pictures explain themselves :)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lorynbrantz/if-disney-princesses-had-realistic-hair#.twYPO4844

LOLZ! So true.

Here's a link to Disney Buzzfeed Article titled : "The One Thing You’ve Never Noticed About The Prince From “Snow White” Will Blow Your Mind"

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kristinchirico/the-prince-is-very-pretty#.gsLYL6z66

Into the Mind of Anti-Disney Henry A. Giroux

Henry Giroux, a man who is very passionately anti-Disney, provides an interesting look at the effects of Disney on children's culture and how we as a society need to hold the Disney corporation accountable for "eroding civil society while claiming to restructure it." While I disagree with the extent to which some of his strong claims about Disney actually impact children's perspectives and ideologies, there were several things that I enjoyed about his article, "Animating Youth: The Disneyfication of Children's Culture."

• Giroux does a good job of organizing his arguments into coherent paragraphs that are numbered and clearly indicate what he will be discussing. Breaking up his article into numbered sections makes the article a bit less dense and helps the reader to identify the themes of his article.

• I agree with Giroux's point that we should not overlook Disney's negative underlying messages, themes, and stereotypes simply because children are the target audience. To support this, he hits on the idea that Disney makes childhood "compatible with consumerism" and that  the corporation masks its true intentions with a "trademarked innocence." I found this point interesting and valid because I personally found myself thinking that the reason I still loved Disney movies despite it's sometimes offending comments/visuals is because they're supposed to be light-hearted, fun movies that inspire children to dream and never give up. While I still think this is true, I do ask myself, should this be enough to justify the racial, historical, gendered, and cultural implications of Disney movies?

• I liked how Giroux addressed Disney's very one-sided portrayal of protagonists being white and the portrayal of "a native white Protestant dream of a world without blacks or immigrants" and "a world without tenements or poverty or urban class conflict." While it seems harmless that Disney fails to represent children of color, overtime I have seen how damaging it can be for minorities and non-white children to be exposed to only white heroes and princesses, as I of agree that it molds into their heads an idea that these positions can only be filled by white girls and boys. While Disney does beer their movies towards all children, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are portraying all kinds of children, hence the enormous lack of diversity. As a little side-note, I think my mother noticed this theme in Disney as a child and while she continued to show me Disney movies, she coupled them with an HBO show called: "Happily Ever After: A Tale for Every Child" that remade Disney films and story lines using characters of all different ethnicities and backgrounds.

• Though I may be contradicting myself, one thing I don't quite understand is why Giroux and many others are so convinced by the idea that young children are truly aware of messages conveyed in Disney movies and are so impacted by Disney as to changing their ideologies. I don't actually believe that the values and life goals of young children are being changed or swayed. For instance, I didn't watch The Little Mermaid thinking, ya know what? It's totally okay for me to abandon my family, change my body, and give up the things I enjoy most to find love. While I do admit that as I grew older (end of middle school, early high school) I began to pick up on more of these negative messages, I simply just grew aware of these negative stereotypes and if anything, it made me stronger, being able to acknowledge the wrong is Disney. However for children, I think we need to reevaluate the long-term impacts on children that Giroux claims is prevalent.

• One thing I'd thought to be super cool and hadn't considered before is the notion of children making films and other forms of cultural production in order to become more aware/hold more power over knowledge production. The actual making of a film can help children to explore themes with a subconscious that uses moral judgment and to decipher what is and is not okay to include in films. I think learning in this way is unique but has potential for effectiveness and was intrigued by this point.

Giroux had some interesting points, but on a COMPLETELY random note, I was upset by how he portrayed Belle in his quick analysis of Beauty and the Beast. He describes Belle simply as a model of etiquette. While this may be true in certain instances, it in no way shape or form encapsulates what Belle stands for. She is one of the only Disney princes that chooses love for personality and looks past the superficiality of love that is presented to her (Gaston). She actually takes time to educate herself (funny that she is outcasted and talked about because of it) and actually takes the time to get to know the Beast before falling in love with him (Most Disney princesses fall in love way too fast, sometimes in minutes). I remember Belle for showing that love is more than appearance and life is more rewarding when we spend time embracing the non-artificial and taking time to enjoy what surrounds us (books, nature, etc.).

These are my thoughts on Giroux!!! Stay tuned for more!

Peace Love Disney :) 

Chandler

Janet Wasko's "Challenging Disney Myths" essentially hates on Walt Disney's entire life and the Disney corporation. She disapproves of the enormous credit given to Disney for the production of Disney films and feels that Disney is a monopoly that holds too much influence over kids and adults worldwide. While she makes valid points, her evidence provided to support her claims are complete crap; this evidence tends to be either irrelevant or way too stretched to meet the argument. 

For instance, in her paragraph falsifying Walt Disney's portrayal as a "creative genius," she denounces Disney, asserting that Walt "relied on other artists and managers to accomplish the studio's work and to create 'Disney Art'" simply because people other than Disney contributed to the companies success (Wasko 241). I think it is a silly point, as it is ridiculous to say that Disney shouldn't receive credit for the companies success just because he didn't directly contribute to the art portion of the company He contributed in a variety of ways, for instance being a great businessman and being able to attract society to the visions he dreamed up. Wasko's argument is superficial in that she hints that Walt is undeserving of success because his abilities are not as prominent/flashy as the drawings and animations seen in Disney movies. In addition, Wasko implies that Disney is not the talented artist that he was known to be because he struggled to duplicate the famous Disney signature that society knew and loved. I personally feel this evidence sucks, as anyone may have difficulty reproducing a logo, especially over the course of a five second autograph. The struggle to duplicate art is not exclusive to Disney and the information does not enhance her challenging of Walt's abilities. Essentially, while there may be valid reasons as to why Disney does not deserve the overwhelming credit he has received, Wasko fails to provide them.

On the other hand, Wasko does provide good evidence supporting the negative influence of Disney movies on children. Drawing on the fact that most Disney heroines have beautiful faces, pleasing temperaments, tiny faces, and often are "barely alive" (like literally not awake), she illustrates how Disney inundates girls with these historical ideas of women having to rely on their appearances and be subservient to men in order to be considered a heroine (lol "historical," has this really gone away? I think not). Similarly, she challenges the idea that Disney movies are "unbiased" and "wholesome" with good examples, pointing to the Disney values of conservatism, ethnocentricity, cultural insensitivity, and superficiality that are recurring themes in Disney movies. 

I liked how Wasko addressed the control of Disney behind their products, characters and images and in "developing their reputation as a brand that process positive, wholesome, family and children's entertainment." Interestingly, despite the underlying stereotypes and somewhat negative messages present in Disney movies, it is still made possible to love Disney (LIKE I DO!!!!)

Long story short, she had some crappy points but some good ones too!

Peace Love Disney

Chandler

Chandler McMillan's Blog Link

Disney has been a huge part of my life for as long as I can remember. I was raised dressing up like the Disney princesses, singing renowned Disney film scores in the shower, and bonded with some of my best friends over Disney. Though I am nostalgic when it comes it Disney and have a great love for the childhood memories it brought me, as I grew older I began to pick up on some of the gender and racial stereotypes that were prevalent in Disney films. As I became aware of these somewhat negative stereotypes, I wondered to myself, what is it about Disney that makes me love despite it's somewhat negative messages? Though I am curious to learn these things, I still feel that DISNEY=LIFE and that the world would not be nearly as interesting as it is without Disney's presence!!!!! And I definitely will ensure that my kids grow up singing "Hakuna Matata" and dressing up in Disney onesies :)

Continuing on with my love for Disney, concerning my favorite character, I would have to say that's an impossible question to answer because my favorite character probably changes on a weekly basis! :) However, at the moment, my favorite character is Phil from Hercules. He's the hilarious satyr that accompanies Hercules on his journey to becoming a God again! He never ceases to put Hercules in his place when he's being stupid and whips Hercules into incredible shape! Plus, who doesn't love the last scene of Hercules where Phil, who's been looking to be known for training an accomplished, legendary hero, hears the audience saying about Hercules, "Hey, thats Phil's boy!," and he cries tears of pride! SO cute!

Anyways, besides talking about how awesome Disney is and things that I love/can do without in Disney movies, I endeavor to learn in Decoding Disney what designates a classic a "classic," why is it that everyone wants their kids to be immersed and aware of the Disney culture, and the evolution of Disney from its creation till now. While I am familiar with the numerous Disney movies, I am unfamiliar with the history of Disney, the corporations that Disney owns, and the persons of Walt Disney. I hope to learn more about this through Decoding Disney and have a great year!!!! 

Peace Love Disney :))))


Chandler McMillan