I'm reading a book right now titled "The Gospel According to Disney: Faith, Trust, and Pixie Dust". I'll admit right off the bat that I'm a Disney fanatic. I still pull out old Disney videocassette tapes and watch favorites with my teenage brother. I've often wondered what it is about Disney films that can captivate audiences of all ages, and when I picked up this book I found my answer.
According to author Mark I. Pinsky, Disney films contain moral lessons. He says that Disney films do NOT contain religion. In his first chapter, before he delves into his analysis of individual films, he explains that “The Disney empire, by its founder’s designation, is a kingdom of magic, almost totally without reference to any kingdom of heaven” (Pinsky, 2). And so I started to think back to different films, and found it to be true (here exclude “The Hunchback of Notre Dame). Soon I realized that I still love Disney films because they teach without preaching.
Of course Disney has faced critics who say that he should have put Judeo-Christian principles into his films by directly referencing these religious traditions. Pinsky quotes Reverend Clark Whitten of Calvary Assembly Church as saying, “They [Disney] have lots of good points, but they do not go far enough to truly reflect the deeply held Christian faith of tens of thousands of Americans” (Pinsky, 6).
But this posting is not about religion, I used the references to religion, or lack there of, in Disney films to help explain why I still love them. I think it admirable of Walt to not want to favor one faith over another. If you read the book itself you’ll find that he was a spiritual man who respected all faiths without being a deeply religious man. But enough about religion – let me get down to the question I want to pose with this post.
While reading different blogs on ProgressiveU I discovered that some users post questions and few thoughts and then wait for comments from other users before going on to elaborate on what they think. I have decided to do just that.
While reading the eight chapter, the one about Cinderella, I discovered something so interesting that I had to return from my month long absence to ask about it. The quotation about Cinderella’s stepsisters read as follows: “Are they considered ugly because they are bad or bad because they are ugly?” (Pinsky, 53).
Well? Think about it. Think about it from a child’s perspective. Think about it from an average adult’s perspective. Think about it from Disney’s perspective. What do children think? What do average adults think? What did Disney think? What do you think?
More from me later.
Bibliography
Pinsky, Mark I. The Gospel According to Disney: Faith, Trust, and Pixie Dust. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.
I'm not sure I'll agree with this comment, because Walt Disney was antisemitic, and showed some rather racist attitudes (which would imply a lack of acceptance of the religions of the 'colored people'). Then again, maybe his racism didn't apply to religion.
As far as your question, I don't think they're bad because they're ugly, persay... I think they're ugly because it represents the fact that they're bad, against the beautiful Cinderella. Of course, I'm not sure I'd call them ugly in the first place... not beautiful, certainly, but not ugly. The mother is certainly not ugly, as she carries a regal air about her.
If you look at, say, Snow White's stepmother, she's pretty beautiful. Dark, but her skin is flawless and whatnot (least, until she turns into the witch). But it's plain that she's evil. So, I don't think the implied 'she's bad because she's ugly' works out as an archetype in Disney.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I suppose I'll start by saying that this is the first book I've read about Disney himself, so perhaps I was a bit rash in restating what the book indicated. I'd be interested in hearing what examples you have regarding what made Disney anti-semitic. I'm looking to learn more about him and the theory behind his films, any examples you can give would be welcome.
Also an interesting point about Snow White's stepmother. I think that the "bad because they are ugly and ugly because they are bad" thing changes as viewers grow older. Any thoughts on that?
Thank you for reading and commenting.
I think I might've jumped the gun on that one, and that was my bad. I have heard many times that Disney was antisemitic, and just before I posted that comment, I googled it to be sure. I found a white supremist essay on it, and a wikipedia page about another book about Walt that supposedly described his antisemitism. If you watch the video on this page, you'll see the author of another book describe him as not antisemitic in the typical sense of the word, just that he allied himself with antisemitic people and organizations.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I would probably have to say neither on this as well, at least so far as the Disney responsibility (as it were) goes. In nearly every Cinderella story, the step sisters are portrayed as less shining in beauty than is Cinderella. My guess would be that Disney was merely attempting to keep as true to the classic version of the story with the creation of the characters as they could. In the story itself, their lack of beauty does play a somewhat important role. As one tale says
I'd think from a broader perspective, the ugliness is both a reflection of their already rotten character as well as one of the reasons that rottenness develops into a loathing of Cinderella.
So, I'm not sure I'd say that in the Disney version it's a question of ugly because they are bad or bad because they are ugly but more with keeping to the classic insofar as they could while still making it their own.
Beast in Beauty and the Beast is quite hideous in both nature and form. Only upon discovering the good inside himself and the ability to love, do viewers ever see his true form. Gaston, on the other hand, is considered quite the dashing figure, but he's rotten to the cure. The beautiful queen in Snow White is quite lovely in look but quite horrendous in character while the dwarves are silly looking little things but are quite charming in nature. In Sleeping Beauty, Maleficent (while oddly colored) wasn't hideous in form either, though she was quite psychotic. I guess 'ugly because they're bad or bad because they're ugly' just doesn't really seem to keep with the Disney character as I've always experienced it because it's different for every tale and you're never really sure what physical form rottenness is going to take.
-----
Like writing? So do we!
~Fallon~
"If I fall asleep with a pen in my hand, don't remove it - I might be writing in my dreams."- Pace
-----
I do agree that it is cool that Disney does not have religious connotations and allows us to share the stories regardless of faith. But, I have heard that Walt Disney was an anti-semite and that he reenforced stereotypes of various groups. However, Christianity is the faith of millions of Americans but it is not the faith of all Americans, we ought to have our share of things in our society that are for all Americans. Most Christian values aren't exclusively Christian anyway. Good Post!
They're ugly because they're bad. Most villians in Disney movies are not attractive. If you look at the attractive villians, most of them are the underhanded, sly type of villian where our protagonist has no idea of their evil plans until the end of the story. Therefore their looks are implemented as part of their character... their good looks are part of the deception. Also, the attractive villians have more of the 'sexy' good looks whereas the protagonists nearly always have the good looks that portray innocence. Is this Disney using a subtle form of manipulation, or is it the way humans in general think? I think it's the latter, although I have not much more than hunches to back it up. I think people are more amazed to find a sexy girl who's smart and just assume that the 'girl next door' is naturally intelligent.
Any thoughts? I would love for someone with more time and interest to compound on that theory.
Seems to me that Disney covers the board when it comes to villains. It is never a guess as to who is the villain, Beauty and the Beast being the only exception that comes to mind, but they span the attractiveness scale quite nicely. Ursula from "The Little Mermaid" is an out and out monster, while Gaston in "Beauty and the Beast" is a picture of virile sexiness. One calls to mind an arm load of fainting damsels being cast of like playing cards.
Many Disney movies are based on old folk or classic stories, so their villains follow along. Disney's animated movies are generally good children's tales. They are usually at least one step above the lowest common denominator of morality, and when I was a kid I remember the icily attractive villains more than the ugly ones. Ursula being the main exceptions because I though she was really very scary.
Frankly Disney's new turn as tween entertainer and uber-merchandiser/baby sitter role is what worries me greatly. The animated features that I can remember were relatively complex children's level stories. Slightly neutered perhaps, and certainly not always showing the most enlightened view of women (but few movies do anyway).
Now that I think on it though, I can't think of too many ugly protagonists. The beast doesn't really count. He is an obstacle and a prize more than a protagonist. There is the hunchback of Notre Dame and that's about it. Ugly and attractive can apparently both be evil, but only attractive ones can be good.
“Existentialism means that no one else can take a bath for you” - Delmore Schwartz
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles." - George Jean Nathan
Doesn't Ursula take human form at one point in the movie? She has a sort of ugliness to her because of her vile nature, but physically, she wasn't hideous by any means at that point. So even in the Little Mermaid, the whole "ugly because she's evil or evil because she's ugly" thing doesn't completely fly.
I think that's Disney's whole point, though - evil isn't always ugly. Many times, it's actually very attractive and enticing.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
As for your question I am not quite sure. Maybe they put her to work because she is so beautiful and they are jealous because they don't look like her. I can be pretty opinionated about things but some things I just have no idea what to think.
I watch disney movies alot as well. I haven't in quite a while though. I also think they are easy and fun to watch because they make you feel like a kid again... and the movies themselves don't require alot of thinking to figure out what is going on. The moral thing I agree with you as well. Although I have liked some of the new disney movies I really wish they would bring back sketching instead of using computers all the time.
I don't know I think technology has and will just screw us all. Make us more impatient, more demanding, and lazy. Great blog though and good point's. I don't know about Walt's faith but he did a great job with his messages in movies and a great job creating them.
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!