How Disney Defines Childhood (Response to Celeste Lacroix's "Images of Animated Others: The Orientalization of Disney's Cartoon Heroines from The Little Mermaid to The Hunchback of Notre Dame)

In the abstract of her article "Images of Animated Others: The Orientalization of Disney's Cartoon Heroines from The Little Mermaid to The Hunchback of Notre Dame, LaCroix writes "Disney’s consumerist framework...provides 'dreams and products through forms of popular culture
in which kids are willing to materially and emotionally invest'. It is this idea of children's emotional investment in Disney's "worlds" that I wish to explore. Disney media is incredibly powerful as it is often a child's first representations of a different world. For example, I'm half Nigerian and one of the questions I often got when I was younger was "Oh. Africa...that's like Lion King right? Have you seen a lion?" Now, this is a harmless question, but it does show the pervasiveness of Disney and many children's tendency to conflate the "Disney World" with the real world. Like LaCroix said, kids "emotionally invest"in Disney's products, one of which is media. My personal experience with this phenomenon is vast. For a while, I thought Mulan was a 100% accurate depiction of the Hun Invasion. I wondered if John Smith ever came back to America to meet Pocahantas (I think I once asked a teacher if her tribe was the one the pilgrims ate with during the first Thanksgiving) and I most definitely thought Agrabah was a real place. I had little to no experience with Asian culture, no experience with Native American culture, and no experience with Middle Eastern culture. Disney filled a cultural void that was left by a very white American based media. Disney was all I had to connect to other cultures, but Disney was not really portraying any other culture-it was simply promoting the Disney version of other places, the version that fit into their movies, intrigued, but did not alienate, their viewers, and would make them the most money.

This problem with accurate representation is not Disney specific. Many TV shows and movies portray stereotypes of different people and cultures as the whole truth, in fact I question whether it is even possible to make a very 3D culture or people 2D 100% accurately. But, very view media outlets have the power and scope of Disney and this is where the main issue lies. How do we move past stereotypes and misrepresentations of other people and cultures if we literally grow up on them? This is an essential question because these misrepresentations prevent us both internally and externally. Externally, they can alienate us from other members of this culture because we approach them with stereotypes and internally they prevent us from learning.

While LaCroix focused on Disney's stereotyping and sexualization of ethnic women, I believe the broader issue is with Disney's stereotyping and misrepresentation of various groups and how these misrepresentations stick with children as they become adults and (hopefully) interact with people of different backgrounds. I think it's essential that we teach kids to separate the Lion King from Africa and Aladdin from the Middle East. While they're great movies, parents should remind their children that they're just movies. This is the first step to being able to fully embrace Disney movies and fully embrace other cultures.

Disney Princess Movies: The Original Mean Girls (A Response to The Subversion of The Little Mermaid)

I'm actually too excited to write this post. The LaCroix article was  HUGE "a-ha" moment for me. I can't even organize all the things I want to discuss. Ok, I'm just going to flow these ideas. The overall category is WOMAN TO WOMAN CONFLICT AND DISNEY'S OBSESSION WITH IT or DISNEY WAS MEAN GIRLS BEFORE MEAN GIRLS WAS MEAN GIRLS. LaCroix's point that Disney movies promote woman to woman conflict is incredibly important. I would like to extend this point to say that many Disney movies are actually subtly centered on this conflict and speculate about some of the effects of this focus.

To articulate her point about Disney's promotion of female conflict LaCroix uses Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty as examples. I will use the same examples to flesh out my argument that woman to woman conflict is actually the center of these movies and not romantic love, even though the prince is often portrayed as the focus. In Snow White, the prince is on screen for all of four minutes. The movie really focuses on Snow White's escape from Wicked Step-Mother. The prince in Cinderella gets much more screen time, but overall the story is about Cinderella escaping the horrible life caused by her wicked step-sisters and step mother. Sleeping Beauty is similar in that the tension is between Sleeping Beauty, the heroine, and the villain, the evil Malificent. While the prince is part of the "happy ending, he is not the central focus of the film. Ok, now that we've established that the focus is on women to women conflict, let's explore what this conflict suggests.

Disney's apparent love for woman to woman conflict seems to send this concise message - "If another woman is "prettier" than you than she is your enemy. Especially if there's a guy involved". Snow White's stepmother literally tried to kill her when it was revealed that Snow White was prettier than her. In the movie, it is after Snow White blows a kiss at the prince that the Queen turns to the mirror and decides that Snow White must die. In Cinderella, the step-mother treats Cinderella awfully because she is prettier and nicer than her children and she wants one of her daughters to marry the prince instead of Cinderella. Sleeping Beauty is a bit more complicated as Malificent curses Sleeping Beauty because she was not invited to her first birthday party, but even this story follows the same line of an older, less attractive woman taking a pretty young princess out of the game when she reaches maturity (16). Disney repeatedly paints younger and prettier woman as competition and this idea extends into the real world.

I had a similar revelation about woman to woman interactions being masked by male-female interactions and a slight competitiveness between women while getting ready for a school dance. I remember my mom teasing me about putting all this effort into getting ready for some boy and repeatedly asking me what boy I'm trying to impress. I repeatedly told her no one. I was not being facetious or a "typical teenager" hiding things from her parents, there was legitimately no guy at the dance I really cared about impressing, but there where people there I did want to astound. Those people were my close female friends and other girls at my school. While a guy telling me that I was pretty was definitely nice, compliments from my female classmates simply meant more. t's like being a professional diver and getting a compliment from a spectator, some who appreciates the sport definitely but has no idea the intricacies that go into it, versus getting a compliment from another diver.  In case it's not clear (some) men (definitely not all) are the spectators and other women (many but not all) are the divers.

I believe that there is a desire in many woman (on some level) to be the "princess of the ball" and that acknowledgement of "you look great" from other women is what provides that "princess" feeling. A big reason for this is that beauty has historically been associated with a woman's "value". Thankfully, we live in an age that realizes that this association is nonsense but we still play into it. We still obsess over the beautiful to an almost obscene level. Look at the amount of girls gearing up for the up-coming Victoria's Secret Fashion Show. I promise you it will trend on Twitter (it did last year) and (like last year) the majority of tweets will be from other women praising the gorgeousness of angel after Victoria's Secret Angel. While attractive people get more societal benefits for both genders, there is a bigger emphasis on female beauty. A friend said it best during a conversation about gender "with guys, if they're not cute it's ok. They can be athletic or funny or powerful or whatever and still be "acceptable". But with girls, you can be athletic or funny or powerful, hell, you can be athletic and powerful AND funny and people will still hit you with the "aww Honey, do you wana try something different with your hair? Have you been to Sephora? It's like if you're not "pretty" everything else you are doesn't matter". This desire or competition to be the "prettiest" has clear age lines because America's standard of beauty, in my perspective, has a necessary component of youth. So when a young, pretty girl starts maturing, she becomes competition to older women and, according to Disney, the competition must be destroyed.

LaCroix's article really impacted me because this is a competition I believe I see often and it is one that does not need to exist. Women are still a marginalized group and a strong sense of sisterhood, in other terms a shared womanhood, is necessary to push against modern day gender discrimination.  While Disney movies may play a role in the instigation of this "pretty" competition, many many media outlets are involved. There are countless studies that describe the media's effect on female self-image and the overarching message is "You're not pretty enough, our product will make you prettier and pretty is a necessity". Media presents this goal that so many cannot reach and stirs some small sense of resentment or jealousy for those who can. Let us be careful not to turn into Snow White's mother continuously asking "who's the prettiest". Let us not see other women as potential enemies, but always as potential allies.

An Investigation Into Celebration, FL: Possibly the Creepiest Town Ever. Inspired by Kevin ShortSleeve's Disney, Despotism, and the 1930s

http://www.celebration.fl.us/- their website

statistical breakdown of town- http://www.city-data.com/city/Celebration-Florida.html

This town really creeps me out. After reading about it in Shortsleeve's article, I had to investigate and it really is as creepy as it sounds. I really hope your soul isn't searching for it because then I would have to assume that your soul is as twisted and dark. First, let me break down the stats. All stats are as of 2010. In 2010, there were apporximately 7,500 residents. There are more woman than men (52.4% women vs. 47.6% men). The average age of a resident is 40. The average income is approximately $81,000. The resident population is approximately 82% white, 11% Hispanic, 3% Asian, 2% Mixed, and 1% Black, .2% Native American, and .04% Pacific Islander (so about one family?). So a typical Middle Class, White, suburban town. This is the basic picture, now let's dig a little deeper. 

First off-The first sentence, I mean the very very first, on their website is "We want to get to know you". Strike one. In a 1999 interview with the NY Times, resident Julie Jensen admitted that the town is "Stepford wife like" (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/07/realestate/at-celebration-some-reasons-to-celebrate.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm). Strike Two. They have a "Porch Police" (ShortSleeve 15). Strike Three. It's just not acceptable. Plus there's that questionable clause in the Celebration contracts that gives Disney's real estate company veto power over any changes in Celebration government as long as Disney owns even one piece of property in Celebration (ShortSleeve 26). To me, the only reasonable explanation for the existence of this town is that 7,500 people have lost their minds. 

While Celebration really does kind of creep me out, my paranoia of the town speaks to a deeper paranoia I have of Disney media. In short, I like Disney, but I don't trust Disney. During the summer of 2010, I took a class entitled "Blackness, Media, and Self-Concept" at Indiana University Bloomington. It was my first introduction to media studies and the various ways media permeates in our lives. I hate to be cliche, but it was life changing. Media Studies really interested me and media studies relating to my black identity, an area of myself that I always want to learn more about, was beyond perfect. We didn't discuss Disney at all in this class, but I couldn't help but see all media through this new critique lens when I returned from the class. I still remember how deeply disappointed I was in Disney. Though my disappointment was limited to the Disney Channel as that was the Disney media I interacted with on a regular basis (my baby brothers are Disney obsessed), my disappointment stretched far and wide. I was disappointed in the programming, the characters, the blatant stereotypes, the shrieking, hideously fake laugh track, all of it. I couldn't fathom how I could have grown up on a channel that so clearly did not think much of me as a black female. One moment of actual heart breaking disappointment occurred during an episode of "Good Luck Charlie". "Good Luck Charlie" is about a white suburban family, a mom, dad, two daughters, and two sons, and their misadventures. The older daughter-Teddy- is the protagonist and she records video diaries of the family for her young sister, Charlie, to watch when she's older. Teddy has a best friend, Ivory, who is black and sassy. In one scene, Teddy and Ivory get back essays. Teddy exclaims "Oh no! I got a B+". Three seconds later, Ivory exclaims "Yes! Yes! I got a C+!" Cue Disney side eye. 

It may seem as if I'm being incredibly sensitive to this one moment, but that's the thing-it's not just this one moment. It's a combination of many moments, this one just happens to encapsulate one of the overarching themes of these many moments. Black people aren't as smart as their white counterparts. Disney Channel must have gotten a lot of critiques for this because one of their newer series-Shake It Up- there is a pair of best friends-one black, one white- and the black character's excellent grades are mentioned super often in contrast to her best friends average academics. So yay progress, but still-the trust that I had for Disney to be just feel good media is gone and never to return. For every Shake It Up, there are two or three more shoes that render black people as invisible or ignorant. 

And while that is just my personal experience with Disney, Disney leaves a lot to be desired in its representation of Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, anyone from a foreign nation, and a host of other issues. I do worry that I learned too much of the "critique" in "Blackness, Media, and Self-Concept" and not enough "appreciation", but I recognize that Disney is excellent at creating that feel-good programming, making its characters ubiquitous, and establishing that general sense of "magic" and "laughter", but like in another famous wonderland, Oz, when you pull the curtain back it is not the stuff of dreams, but the making of great disappointment. 

Disney pulled the rug out from under me and so I don't trust it. I approach each new Disney Channel show with a strong sense of paranoia-which stereotypes will this one employ, how much correcting am I going to have to do for my brothers when this one goes off. I can't speak to an overall sense of Disney distrust, but in my world Disney Channel is very much like celebration. Looks good on the outside, but still gives you a feeling of unease for reasons you can't explain. And when you discover those reasons, you can't imagine why this exists. 

Mickey's Evolution! (Con't) 1920's-Today

Mickey's Evolution (In Response to the Class and Article About Mickey's Evolution) "The Masks of Mickey Mouse: Symbols of a Generation" by Robert Brockway

A google search of "the evolution of Mickey Mouse" will result in a surprising number of results. All of them show the same basic change-Mickey goes from a long point nose, small eyes, and a tiny body, to the circular figure many know and love today. While Brockway's argument about circles being more relatable than angles seemed pretty stretched to me, his questions about Mickey's enduring fame and his ending pondering about whether Mickey's popularity will last past 2001 are ones the stayed on my mind even after class. While Mickey will always be popular, he's moved from a cartoon to a social figure, I would argue that his popularity is waning. Before I go any further, I have to ask any reader to separate Mickey Mouse from the Disney Corporation, even though the two are often seen as synonymous.  While Disney seems to be more popular than ever these days, Mickey is slowly disappearing from the public eye. Disney Channel has mini-commercials where current stars draw his outline, he's on almost everything in Disney world, and almost everyone in the world knows what he looks like. But, Mickey has gone from being everyone's favorite character to a mere mascot of one of the world's largest companies. Instead of being the star on Disney Channel's mini-commercials, he's just the image they draw. There was a time when every kid had to have a Mickey Mouse watch. Now, it's custom to get a child a Mickey Mouse stuffed toy or a shirt with him on it, or some other item, but I don't believe kids are clamoring for the latest Mickey toy the same we they clamor for Bratz dolls or Barbies or stuffed figures of Phineas and Ferb. I think Brockway used the wrong wording when he said "Mickey may live to see the year 2001...but he may not survive much beyond". Mickey Mouse will always survive, but he will not always exist in the same way. He will continue this transition from a beloved character who is in touch with the children to a beloved cultural icon many recognize. I can't decide which representation is more powerful-character or icon? Is it better to be the character all the kids clamor to see or the image children recognize from ages as young as five? To permeate the TV or the culture? I do not have answers to these questions yet, but I do know that Mickey Mouse is not going anywhere so I will have time to figure it out.

Simple Movie Covers

Why The New Blog

I created my previous blog with my gmail address from high school. The account was created by my school and subsequently deleted as I have graduated (oops), so here we go! Blog round 2! Bigger and better than ever!