Can Disney films be academically analysed?

[Wonderlicious]

Wonderlicious, my compliments on your post. It's been a long time since I've read such an informative, well thought-through post on UD.

Wahoo! Go me!

I never knew that about Peter Pan. Sounds like a fantastic idea to turn into a Disney film. I like the Disney-film, but mostly because of all the characters around Peter (Mr. Darling, Tinkerbel, Captain Hook, Mr. Smee and yes, the indians). I never cared much for Peter, but then again, there is nothing to care about. Peter has no real personality and that's the film's biggest flaw.

Around Christmas 2007, I finally read Barrie's novelization of the original play (the play was first staged in 1904, Barrie wrote the definitive novel version in 1911, perhaps so that he could immortalise it himself on page before anyone else came and novelised it for him). I was quite intrigued by its naturalism of sorts; Barrie wrote the novel in the style of an oral storyteller reciting the story to young children, incorporating lots of nuances usually associated with spoken English, and at one point "tossing a coin" so as to choose which exact Neverland adventure to retell (the rescuing of Princess Tiger-lilly is chosen eventually). But what struck me the most was how bittersweet it actually is. Peter tries to go back to his mother, but the window is nailed shut after Peter vanished, and his mother is preoccupied with a new baby (Disney did actually consider this scene during development; it's one of the deleted scenes in the documentary on the Platinum DVD). Equally, Barrie added an ending scene in his eventual novelization of the play where Peter came back every so often to play with Wendy, only to one day come back and see that she had grown up and had children of her own (true, we meet Wendy's daughter Jane in the cheapquel ). Steven Spielberg used some of those scenes in Hook, when Peter remembers his days as Peter Pan. But just on its sheer charm and fantastic escapism, Disney's Peter Pan is probably the best film version of the story, even if it doesn't go into as much depth as Barrie (having said that, I think that if it were made today as opposed to 1953, it would go into a similar depth as Barrie or other film versions).

I have to disagree, though, on what you said about not overstating the complexity of Disney's movies. While it's true in most cases that they are simple stories, I think Hunchback of Notre Dame is hard to grasp fully for children. I think only adults can really appreciate every layer of that movie.

Darn it, I forgot about that one. And I was one of the puzzled eight year olds back in 1996 who watched it again as a teenager after a few years and was shocked to see how dirty Frollo actually was! Forgetting about Quasimodo and chums is obviously a sign of what happens when you have all the princess and fairy films floating around as the prime examples. I've gone and updated my post slightly to reflect what you said.

I suppose if Peter could always leave Neverland the original message wouldn't be do bad, but if Peter was a tortured soul stuck in a childish hell, that would be nothing short of horrible. But I think Walt was saying it's not bad to be a kid forever. Walt even said "adults are just children grown up" and believed in "the child in us all". I think Walt thought it was okay for adults to be like children, or to hang on to the best things of childhood, forever.

I agree that showing a stressed-out and constantly upset kid in a Disney cartoon of the 1950s isn't the best place to display a constantly stressed out and tortured child. I think that I may have exaggerated Peter's position a bit too much; by tortured soul, I meant that he was unhappy deep down with his predicament, and the childish hell really is that all he gets to do is play while his playmates from the real world (and Neverland - it's implied that Tink dies) grow up and eventually vanish.

But what message you've got is pretty much spot on in my opinion (and practically everyone else's ). The original book/play has the message of "not growing up sounds like fun, but it's better to just accept the passage of time and not get trapped in limbo", whereas the Disney message is "it's better to accept the passage of time, but having a childlike heart through it all is fine". Essentially, it's as though Disney is twisting Barrie's vision to suit his own needs. I don't think that Disney did anything wrong in this instance, but obviously, some could find the sheer practice disturbing as they could claim that Disney is intentionally misinterpreting people's opinions.

Even if there is no big amount of high intellectuality to the films, Disney may be saying who needs super complicated intellectual stuff anyway? I think Walt Disney is smarter in saying that you don’t need that, when his films speak to every single person, and when they don’t require that stuff for people to love them. It shows life is not about that intellectual stuff, it is about feelings. Intellectual stuff can give you certain feelings, I know, but his films are about the feelings that are really important and we really need.

That's what I've been trying to say. Walt was never trying to create deep, overly complex and pretentious films; he was trying to tap into the raw emotions of all humans, which is what makes the "classics" so memorable (the same can be said for a lot of the great non-Disney films as well). Something doesn't have to be extremely complex or belonging to the canon of high culture to be praised.

And I guess you could reach all people and still put intellectual stuff in there. Some people will get it, but the ones who don't would still enjoy the film. I mean, I think that's possible...

A lot of people from under-privileged backgrounds who go up in the world tend to want to dabble in high culture and general "improvement" so as to catch up with what they missed when they weren't as fortunate. There was an exhibition in Paris a few years ago, which eventually also got shown in Quebec and Munich, called "Once Upon a Time...Walt Disney", which showcased the influence of European high culture upon the Disney studio. As well as a lot of the source stories for Walt-era films coming from European authors (British Lewis Carroll, French Charles Perrault, German Brothers Grimm etc), a lot of the artwork was inspired in part by both fine and popular art from the European continent. Sleeping Beauty seeks inspiration from modernist art and a classical ballet score while still being a bankable girl-meets-guy fantasy adventure, and of course, Fantasia tries to promote classical music by setting it to a popular art form.

I want you to.

Okey dokey. The "fable factor" (as I'll call it) varies from film to film. Sometimes, it can have to do with just an amusing representation or observation of human personality (everybody knows somebody who is just like a character in Winnie the Pooh, or 101 Dalmatians being essentially a WW2 escape movie restaged in quaint English settings). Other times, it can be emotional or societal representation (basically, the ones I listed). The latter works especially well in films where there is clearly no arch-villain (Dumbo, Mary Poppins), or where the protagonists may have faults that affect the plot of the film (Pinocchio, Lady and the Tramp, Aladdin) - just like real life. Plus, the best villains are not necessarily the ones who shout and scream, but the ones who have real-life counterparts: the pathologically manipulative evil stepmothers, the mindless hunters, the sly foxes who lead people astray and the moody, power-hungry uncles intent on ruining their nephews' lives to get what they want.

Well considering there are college course that deeply study and analyze this than I'd say you can analyze Disney films in-depth.

If only enlightenment were available in the form of a simple needle injection.

[Disney Duster]

Merlinjones, I must ask how you got your name, but aside from that, I read your analysis, and...wow, I mean, it was really good, and then it got really, really good, and it kinda hit me and made me feel in wasy that do not happen often these days. It's like you sent Peter's ship right toward me, but it had lots of history and information on it, too. I loved reading that. I learned and I felt. I never thought of Wendy's mother as keeping the spirit just as her daughter does, but I think you're right. And you made me feel for the part where Mr. Darling sees the ship from his childhood, something that must have felt more amazing to him than many (any?) other things in his adult life.

You are totally spot on with what has had the Disney company today, except in one thing, and that is what you said about Pixar. Pixar's films are reviewed and noted by critics as being different from Disney. And I feel how they are different too. But other than that, you are right about the company and I hope a ship comes their way, too.

If I may, though, I read a book or two on Walt's life before, but I read one that I think was geared more toward's kids. I never realized how hard Walt's father was on him. Most people said that he hated mothers because in all his films mothers were either bad or something bad happened to them. But he must have really hated his father. If I may, I would say that along with the other analogies in his films you made, that Walt was Cinderella (whom he did say he identified with), his father was the stepmother, and he wished for a fairy godmother to come in like Peter Pan or Mary Poppins and the other magical interveners.

Goliath Peter Pan has a personality. He's an obnoxious, mischevious, tricking, perhaps brazen boy who only wants fun all the time. He's not just any kid, he's the kid who never wants to grow up, he gets mad, but in the end he does take the kids back home. He has a personality. Just like Tink is hissy, gets all mad and jealous but save Peter and Wendy doesn't want to grow up, speaks all proper and gets mad and jealous but does grow up while still being a child like Peter.

I also will say that The Hunchback of Notre Dame is not more complex or deep than all other Disney features, just has themes some children won't get. That's not the same thing.

Wonderlicious I can’t believe JM Barrie would say you gotta grow up and not stay a child forever somehow. I mean, he must have been child-like to write Peter Pan and other stories and I saw Finding Neverland! I can't believe he didn’t think Peter’s adventures were great and that he would want to keep reliving them. Didn’t he even make sequels?

I also realized...JM Barrie must have understood the childhood limbo idea himself in order to write that you shouldn't get caught in it. So maybe he really did wish to be a child forever, but was lonely.

As for tortured Peter, all he needed was someone to be like him, to stay a child with him. The Lost Boys...or finally, a girl who could stay like him. There was some sense of romance in him for Wendy. Or if he was gay, then a boy. Lots o' gay guys have the Peter Pan syndrome.

I also understand what you said about Walt changing the original works messages. Fairy Tales are one thing because those have been changed a lot over time. But works very clearly created only by one author, like Peter Pan, that is a bit of a possibly dubious matter. However, I can also understand Walt thinking he was right in changing it no matter what, because he felt the original messages were wrong or bad and he thought it was right to say better things. However, any adaptation of something is not the very thing, so, I don't know how wrong this really is. If you said the complete opposite of the original message, then, something the original author would find horrible, then yea, that would be wrong.

On the subject of high intellectuality in the films vs. the child's view, it all reminds me of the short Baby Weems which I was very glad to hear Disney made because it agrees with many of my feelings. In it, a couple's baby becomes super smart, and moves so high in the intellectual or studious world that he moves from them. But something happens and the baby loses it's high precociousness, and the couple is so much happier to have their baby back as, well, a baby.

However, I will disagree that you said Disney films ween't the word deep. I think they are deep. At least deeply emotional but also deep in other aspects, even intellectual ones, which, what does that even mean, merely engaging the intellect? Also, the animated features in themselves I would say had a bit of pretense, or at least a sense of importance to them because they were beyond the animated short made just for laughs. When you said Disney "was trying to tap into the raw emotions of all humans, which is what makes the "classics" so memorable (the same can be said for a lot of the great non-Disney films as well). Something doesn't have to be extremely complex or belonging to the canon of high culture to be praised" what did you mean by non-Disney films? Even Best Picture winners?

I still think there is some high intellectuality to Disney films, and I thought that if Walt made the films for children and adults, there must be some. But now I wonder if he meant he makes them for adults to just be like children. In that case, I would wonder what I am doing here, because nowadays, I am drawn to more intellectual or mature things in these same Walt Era films. My love of Disney has grown up with me. I do want to be a child in many ways, but I also like the intellectual things I think I find in these films, and don't want to ignore them. I think Walt couldn't help but put high intellectual things into the films because things he has been quoted as saying, he didn't always keep. He said he was innocent and had sympathy for every animal. Yet he cursed and thought cats were evil. Likewise, he could object to high intellectuality in many cases, but really still put it in his films since he obviously knew of it and cared about such things.

I knew of "Once Upon A Time Walt Disney". : )

When you said he melded classical high art with popular art, how on Earth was animation popular? It was new and not mainstream. At least not feature-length and serious.

101 Dalmatians...really, WW2 metaphor? Like, Jews hiding from going to concentration camps? Wow!

If only enlightenment were available in the form of a simple needle injection.

Please tell me that meant you think there was signifigance to that video as I did!

[Super Aurora]

I also will say that The Hunchback of Notre Dame is not more complex or deep than all other Disney features, just has themes some children won't get. That's not the same thing.

What Disney movie you think is more complex then?


While complexity and themes-that-go-over-children-head's aren't the same thing, the do work well hand in hand. Many 'complexity' concepts involve themes or symbolism.

Perfect example would be stuff like Times of Botchan, or Old Boy.

101 Dalmatians...really, WW2 metaphor? Like, Jews hiding from going to concentration camps? Wow!

That's nothing new. The comic called Maus, did same thing. Fucking good comic that also add complexity.








my pm?

[Disney's Divinity]

I have to agree with Disney Duster about Hunchback. I don't hate the movie, and, yes, it is one of their more "adult" films (that seems a little condescending), but it seems to undeservedly get the place as 'most complex Disney film.' Frollo is honestly the only 'complex' thing about the film, the other characters/rest of the film (where Frollo is not present) don't really justify that title, imo. And I would even question that, because most of the themes from that film are fairly superficial* and not that hard to grasp (it's actually very preachy that way).

I don't know, I think many Disney films are just as (if not more) complex--Pinocchio, Dumbo, Bambi, etc. (of course) And I know it seems to be the norm to automatically think of the '90s films as inferior, but I personally think Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Pocahontas all have their fair share of..."complexity." And I really thought The Princess and the Frog addressed a lot of racial, gender, and social class issues as well.

* I don't mean "superficial" in an "empty, lacking meaning" sense, but more of "it's right there on the surface" sense. You don't have to dive very far to see what Hunchback is saying about religion and its followers, or about race/social class (Frollo obviously manipulates Quasimodo for his own benefit and not out of charity; "God Help The Outcasts"--"I thought we all were...the children of God"; and the finale with, "And He shall smite the wicked," with Frollo subsequently smited). It's the same way some have characterized TLK, in that it has 'deep' themes, but it doesn't really communicate them subtly.

Film is subjective, and just because you think one thing does not mean that you're stupid. Anyway, I think that some people object to some of the messages of Disney not necessarily because they're overtly negative but how they go about presenting the message. I'll present some examples:

Good vs Evil, Black vs White Some Disney films use the formula of pure good vs pure evil. A character like Maleficent is essentially the devil incarnate and incapable of doing good, whereas a character like Aurora is so pure and virtuous that she can hardly do anything without being helped or saved by one of her friends. .

I think it’s true that there tends to be a strict dichotomy to many of Disney’s films (I think it was worst in the 90s, tbh, where every film became a rehash of the same ideas), particularly the overrepresented ‘princess’ films. But, tbh, I don’t think Beauty and the Beast is the best example of it; in fact, it’s probably the least formulaic ‘princess’ film they’ve had. I mean, yes, Gaston is an unlikable character from the beginning, but the movie doesn't depict as evil at the beginning, not like Hades, the Queen, etc. anyway. And Beast is hardly a perfect hero character (Belle could arguably be as such, though that’s not how I would classify her personally). The only examples where I think Disney films tend to live up to this idea are Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. Snow White is a pure virgin and Maleficent is a devil stand-in. But I think the other films branch out more than that. Ariel (and Triton) and Aladdin are hardly pure characters--they aren’t bad characters, but I would never classify them as good incarnate (though Jafar and Ursula are debatably pure evil). Neither is Naveen from TP&TF; Basil from TGMD also doesn't pursue justice out of an adherence to the law, but to mostly as a part of his own idiosyncrasies (just like the Sherlock Holmes character from which he was inspired). And many of the villains have also become more defined--Frollo, of course, but even a character like Hades is given more sympathy than past villains for his supposedly enforced placement in Zeus’ hierarchy. (I think Ursula could fall here as well, though the film doesn‘t give too much to justify her hatred of Triton--she and Ariel are given a lot of similarities though).

And some of their later films have definitely broken past trends. Treasure Planet being my favorite example (where the ‘villain’ actually becomes a father figure), or Lilo & Stitch, where nearly every major character is both a villain and a hero (like most individuals are). As for their earlier films, I personally feel this was much less the case. Snow White and Sleeping Beauty are, imo, more the exception, not the rule. Films like Dumbo, Bambi or Pinocchio seem to shed light on grey areas.

I know you’re probably wondering why I took a whole post to talk about this when you did say “some” Disney films did this and not all--and also that this wasn't necessarily your opinion, but the outlook from the perspective of many academics--but this a similar claim I hear all the time from critics of Disney films (I’ve actually heard this used as a reason some people cite for why they prefer Pixar films). The problem is, I find this to be a gross simplification of their films. I think the majority are not like this. And, even in cases where there is a good character v. bad character story going on, they’ve often made them more than just pure v. evil.

[Wonderlicious]

When you said he melded classical high art with popular art, how on Earth was animation popular? It was new and not mainstream. At least not feature-length and serious.

When I say "popular", I mean to say that it was simply produced for mass audiences (although popular has come to mean celebrated, it can mean "of the people"; popular, population, you get the idea). Though early animation may not have been taken too seriously as anything more than a happy novelty (at least up until Snow White, Fantasia etc), it was still accessible to large audiences; the same film programmes were screened in different establishments across the nation, from grandiose big-city theatres (think the Chinese Theatre, cinemas on Broadway) to small picture houses in rural towns. Compare this to exclusive world of fine art and classical music, which was generally still only accessible for a privileged minority; unless you came from a middle-class (or higher) family in close proximity to a large, cosmopolitan city like New York or San Francisco, then the chances are you wouldn't have had a chance to experience this kind of culture.

101 Dalmatians...really, WW2 metaphor? Like, Jews hiding from going to concentration camps? Wow!

That's nothing new. The comic called Maus, did same thing. Fucking good comic that also add complexity.[/quote]

It's not to do with the Holocaust. I meant that a lot of the wit of the film comes from the fact that they seemed to reference a lot of WW2 escape films; remember that the War had only ended around fifteen or sixteen years beforehand, and that the POW-escape film was becoming a genre all of its own. A lot of the stuffy British general types add to the feel of it being a redressed Operation Escape film.

Please tell me that meant you think there was signifigance to that video as I did!

It's the director's personal work of art, and a means of experimenting with what cinema, and particularly with an optic and flickering medium like film, can do. Good for you seeing something in it as well.

Most of the wish for an enlightenment injection for certain people (a hyperbolic and knowingly unrealistic suggestion, I'll admit) comes from the fact that the person openly mocking it is being cocky, is known to have questionable views, and has made disturbing comments (ignorance and full denial of any environmental issues, immature remarks against the site's content, borderline racist remarks against children, general ultra-conservatism). How eloquent.

[Goliath]

I also will say that The Hunchback of Notre Dame is not more complex or deep than all other Disney features, just has themes some children won't get.

Yes, it is. It's just your fetish for a guy who's been dead for 45 years that holds you from seeing that.

[Disney Duster]

No it's not. What I said is. And what Divinity said. He agrees with me. And I like and see deepness in the dead guy's work. And yes, the man himself, too. But if you wanna talk fetishes we can talk about your list of heroines you want to bang, and how somehow the top one is the one you think is the best most complex character ever.

[Goliath]

No it's not. What I said is. And what Divinity said. He agrees with me.

Oooooooooooh! Well, in *that* case, you *have* to be right!

And I like and see deepness in the dead guy's work. And yes, the man himself, too.

Your delusional mind make them up.

But if you wanna talk fetishes we can talk about your list of heroines you want to bang, and how somehow the top one is the one you think is the best most complex character ever.

I thought we were talking about the fact that, if it were possible, you would dig up Walt Disney's corpse to fuck it. Because that's how sickly in love you are with a dead man, to the point where you think you are his 21st century incarnation (knowing what he would think, say or do). Hey, in that case, masturbation would be a lot less trouble for you!

[Giygas]

I also will say that The Hunchback of Notre Dame is not more complex or deep than all other Disney features, just has themes some children won't get.

Yes, it is.

No it isn't. It could have been, but the movie needed someone to guide it along. The film is extremely inconsistent with it's tone ("I'm free! I'm free! Oh. Dangit!) and Frollo's lust for Esmerelda seemingly comes out of nowhere. (Frollo also could have had less comedic lines. "I had... a bit of trouble with the fireplace." and "Don't shoot my horse!") I think the movie would have been much better if the directors had pushed for a PG rating.

[Scarred4life]

(Frollo also could have had less comedic lines. "I had... a bit of trouble with the fireplace."

Well, what was he supposed to say? I was busy singing a song about the gypsy girl that I'm obsessed with and am going to kill if she won't have me?

and "Don't shoot my horse!")

This isn't really comedic...

I think the movie would have been much better if the directors had pushed for a PG rating.

As much as I love the film, I have to agree. And we need less jokes on the Gargoyles part.

[Super Aurora]

Yes, it is.

No it isn't. It could have been, but the movie needed someone to guide it along. The tone is extremely inconsistent with it's tone ("I'm free! I'm free! Oh. Dangit!) and Frollo's lust for Esmerelda seemingly comes out of nowhere. (Frollo also could have had less comedic lines. "I had... a bit of trouble with the fireplace." and "Don't shoot my horse!") I think the movie would have been much better if the directors had pushed for a PG rating.

Blame that on the Disney formula guidelines.


Frollo's lust for Esmeralda didn't come out of nowhere. Did you pay attention when he was sniffing her hair in the cathedral?

[CJ]

I thought we were talking about the fact that, if it were possible, you would dig up Walt Disney's corpse to fuck it. Because that's how sickly in love you are with a dead man, to the point where you think you are his 21st century incarnation (knowing what he would think, say or do). Hey, in that case, masturbation would be a lot less trouble for you!

Goliath, you have crossed the line with that post. Not only is it a personal attack against a forum member, it is also a post with inappropriate content. There are better ways to get your point across without breaking forum rules. I would hope in the future that you can find a way to express your opinions without breaking the rules. Please review the forum rules and guidelines, and consider yourself warned.

[KubrickFan]

And Goliath's accusing Disney Duster of being obsessed. Right .

[Disney Duster]

Thank you so very much, CJ. Glad to see you around, and to see the moderators around, too, even just a bit.

[Super Aurora]

did you get my pm Duster?

I'm not going be on this forum that much from Sept to Dec. so i'd like if you can respond as quickly as possible.

[Goliath]

Goliath, you have crossed the line with that post. Not only is it a personal attack against a forum member, it is also a post with inappropriate content. There are better ways to get your point across without breaking forum rules. I would hope in the future that you can find a way to express your opinions without breaking the rules. Please review the forum rules and guidelines, and consider yourself warned.

Oh, but I have to swallow all the personal insults hurled at me from holier-than-thou Disney Duster? I have to be okay with being portrayed as a sex-craved maniac every time Duster runs out of arguments? I have to be okay with being called 'empty inside', being called a senseless jerk with no capacity to have feelings, just because I don't believe in Duster's happy, happy, happy magic world?

You should look around to see how many people Duster has offended in the past few months with his moralizing and judgemental posts.

And since you had to tell me that in public instead of in a private message, I take the liberty of responding in public, too. That's only fair, isn't it?

[Luke]

There is one main rule on the forum and that is to avoid attacking your fellow member. Anyone who feels it is being violated is encouraged to send an e-mail to a moderator, including a link to the post or posts in question. No member is given special treatment when it comes to this. The handful of moderators are sure not to catch every dispute that arises on their own. So rather than escalating the issue, help us out by letting us know and we'll decide how best to respond. Thanks.

[Disney Duster]

And thank you very much too, Luke.

[Jackoleen]

Dear Disney Enthusiasts,

Disney movies can indeed be analyzed...even academically. I once compared Belle to a literary character, and that comparison earned me a "B" on one of my college English essays...

I love, love, love analyzing Disney movies, characters, etc. I love asking myself "What if?", and formulating interesting opinions after having thought for awhile about a particular movie (Ie: I once sent an email to someone who'd written an analysis of Disney's "Cinderella", giving several reasons as to why Cinderella should've fallen for The Grand Duke instead of falling for Prince Charming...and even though the other person disagreed with me, we were able to have an open-minded email conversation about the subject...)

So many people tend to respond to Disney analysts with such phrases as "Can't you ever just let a movie be a movie?", "You're over-analyzing everything!", "It's Disney, and they have a formula, and that's why the characters are the way that they are!", etc., but I still contend that the analysis of anything is never necessarily ridiculous, just because there are those who believe that it's ridiculous...

I mean, to each their own, but I have always been one who likes to analyze...

Did anybody else ever compare a Disney character to a literary character when they were writing a paper during Jr. high, high school, college, or grad school?

Thank you in advance for your replies.

[merlinjones]

Duster wrote: >>I read your analysis, and...wow, I mean, it was really good...<<

Thanks for the kind words.


Duster wrote: >>I never realized how hard Walt's father was on him. Most people said that he hated mothers because in all his films mothers were either bad or something bad happened to them. But he must have really hated his father.<<

From what I have gleaned over the years, I think your choice of "hate" would be a vast overstatement. More likely, as a sensitive, creative child, he felt misunderstood by a very practical man - - which is what we see in so many of his films: those adult antagonists that are not villains, but have blinded themselves to their inner child while immersed in a cold adult world. Simply put, I think Walt wanted us to see the world through those more innocent and playful eyes.

As for the lack of parents in the films, this is done for the sake of drama. Like the ancient fairy and folk tales, the classic Disney features are often thematically about learning to grow from child to adult - - and that is a psychological journey that involves separating from the parent and making independent decisions. If parents were more present it would not be possible for the story to play out from the child's point of view. By all accounts, Walt was very close to his Mother (and her death was tragic for him), and this is possibly why he was attracted to stories about orphans and separation (and the traditional evil stepmother) so often - - as this is a very dramatic situation for the audience and a highly resonant internalized fear that is conquered by the protagonists in their adventures.