DVDizzy Forum

Thanks for the info, Mr. Yagoobian,

Maybe I can find some of these titles in the Royal Library.

There's also the Eric Smoodin edited 'Disney Discourse' (Routledge 1994) - which features essays by various authors.

Yea, anything can be analyzed and academically analyzed. You may analyze something and find you don't think there's much to it, especially for adults, but with Disney movies, you would find a lot, that speaks to adults and children, depending on each movie and how deep you go...

I myself plan on doing a deep analysis on my favorite film, which will be very long and I will post when I am finally done. And in school I think about doing papers on animated films.

I actually did a paper on Wall-E because we had too, but that's Pixar, and damnit, Disney movies are way better and deeper. Hey, my opinion!

2099net wrote:But that doesn't mean it "automatically" has depth. You could make a film about recycling Cola bottles and it would help a child understand recycling. It doesn't mean it has "depth". Teaching a child about death isn't "mature" - the very fact its teaching a child means its not mature but a juvenile take on the fact. The fact The Lion King does it in a quasi-religious sense (Mustapha's face appearing in the sky later) means - I would argue - it is far from mature - it's sugar coating the death, and diluting the effect of never being able to see/communicate with the deceased again.

Wel, the movie still did help the kid with his issue.

And even if you are teaching to kids...don't you teach big, smart things to kids? You teach college to what some people still consider kids, college-age adults still call themselves kids.

Also, I understand the idea of making kids think they will see their loved ones again, but he only saw him in the clouds as a ghost and a far away voice, in one moment, and never again. Simba could have been hallucinating or dreaming it up. But in any case, it might just give hope to seeing loved one again in Heaven, coupled with the idea people look down on you from the stars.

I am not sure if children would understand they won't see their parents like that, I'm not sure if they'll get it represents people are still with you in spirit.

I also just realized that Snow White in a way teaches strangers aren't always good, people lie, and wishing isn't always real (wishing on the magic wishing apple, but it's really not a wishing apple).

First of all, at what type of institution does that teacher teach? It doesn't really specify whether she's a high school teacher or university professor. In any case, she's probably just fed up of reading about The Lion King for the umpteenth time. Accept it: if you're even simply a mild appreciator of something, too much hype of said thing will make you hate it. And I think that the teacher would rather have her students write a review on a film that has recently entered their favourites as opposed to a film for which they've got an irrational affection as they've watched it regularly since a young age. Somebody's review of Singin' in the Rain with a slant on how they had a prejudice against musicals and how they overcame it with this film is going to be far more interesting than a fanboy's argument for The Lion King being a perfect film but how the colours on the DVD were awful.

Now onto the general thing about Disney and academia. Just generally due to the high culture vs popular culture snag, there will be a lot of academics who will dismiss or scorn something like Disney. That said, popular culture also can't be ignored when taking into a lot of academic topics into account (even those to do with high culture; a profile of Dali's career has to equally involve mention to Destino), and also when generally assessing the state of society as a whole. There are equally a great deal of academics whose fields of interest concern all sorts of things within the realm of popular culture, and naturally there are many academics who have made both positive and negative academic assessments of Disney.

2099net wrote:I'm not saying The Lion King doesn't have some insight, but to say its one of the most insightful films ever made is - quite frankly - incredibly silly and an example of "Disney hype" from it's fans.

I have to agree with you in that I think some Disney fans really do become quite fundamentalist and either hype certain films beyond belief or shoot down any criticism, potentially becoming insensitive in the process. The fab four are obsessed over the most by these sort of fans, as are Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and sometimes Snow White. I'd love to post some articles I found online about fairy tales that in the process assess some of Disney's renditions (some I can understand, some maybe not), but I kinda dread the stuff the zealous fanboys and fangirls would do/say, as some discussion from some said obsessives (who have loved these films from the age of 2 and have come to view them as practically perfect) in the past has been brainless.

In my opinion, the Disney films can be insightful in that they are essentially fables that grip because underneath their fantastic furnishings, they are essentially simple yet effective commentaries on the world around us. Pinocchio is the prime example here, and Dumbo, Mary Poppins, Cinderella, The Lion King and the non-gargoyle moments from The Hunchback of Notre Dame also spring to mind (I could also list even more and go into far more detail if anyone really wants me too). Equally one must remember that The Three Little Pigs became so popular in the Depression due to its message and theme song scoffing in the face of the wolf (the general hardships that tried to blow them down and eat them up). Sometimes simple commentary is the most effective, and tooting what is simply a charming little parable into something as intellectually elaborate as an art-house film or a piece of Tudor theatre discredits what the original creators, be they Walt and his crew or Disney/Pixar under John Lasseter, originally intended.

Disney Duster wrote:I also just realized that Snow White in a way teaches strangers aren't always good, people lie, and wishing isn't always real (wishing on the magic wishing apple, but it's really not a wishing apple).

But, but, but...Snow White's wish sorta does come true from eating that apple. Think about it: had she still lived with the dwarfs peacefully and confined to the little cottage sweeping up and making pies, would she have necessarily found her prince again? And of course, after biting the apple and falling into the coma, the first thing that she saw was the Prince, thus ironically going against what the Witch/Queen intended to do with the apple. Moral: everything happens for a reason, and that good will triumph over evil's plan. A positive message if I ever saw one.

Marky_198 wrote:That teacher is one of those people that is ruined by experiences in life and for some reason got detached from who he is deep inside.

That's quite insensitive. If you think that the teacher is hurt deep inside, then it's not worth vilifying him/her like you're doing here. Just because someone doesn't like Disney, it doesn't make them less of a person.

Marky_198 wrote:Yes, many "academics" tend to "look down" on what is not their cup of tea.

They are stuck in their own little world...

Funny how the guilty dog barks the loudest.

As someone who has considered taking a path in academia (or at least doing some more years at university), I'd like to just add something. I'm sure that there are many good academics who would like it if you even just had a little peak at what they read/watch/write. The fact is that they've probably seen at least one Disney film in their time (it's inescapable), while their fields of interest are often never explored by anyone other than them. That's some unbalance, ehrlich gesagt.

Of course, because I can understand criticism of some Disney products, and because I've stuck up for the world of academia, I'm probably not worthy of discussing classics on the forum. Remember that one, Marky?

BelleGirl wrote:

Lazario wrote:Funny thing about that, Divinity? Many critics and academics say that Disney still makes non-progressive films.

What the hell do you mean with "non-progressive" films (conservative?) Can you mention (cartoon) features that can be regarded as "progressive"? Even so, does a movie need to be 'progressive' to be good?

There are a lot of writers and filmmakers that can be regarded as great artist and yet express views in their work that many regard as backwards/sexist/ fascist or glorifying murderous dictators and repressive regimes. If they can be appriciated by academics for their artistic value despite these things, why cannot academics merit Disney-movies for their artistic value, whatever sexist, backwards etc. messages they think they may find in them? I know, because it's not 'high' culture.

I'm not an academic, myself. But it's no secret that many people see Disney's films as (almost uniformly) simplistic, insulting, morally hypocritical, and socially backward. And so you know, just because I pointed this out doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them or see everything the same way. I certainly don't let other people make my mind up for me.

Since I'm not an academic, to answer your questions, I think movies are entertainment and they don't "need" to be anything. Most people just want a reason to watch them. But it's been argued that some movies are part of generations of people being raised on bad values and unrealistic expectations. I think that theory holds some water to it.

When we're kids, you know how our parents tell us movies are not real? When do they do that, usually? When it's a scary movie. Or, perhaps, if it's a musical and a couple of people are standing at a train station and suddenly everyone in the background start jumping around and singing for no logical reason. But... think about this; what about relationships in movies? Who tells us that those aren't realistic? What about happy endings? Many people really don't stop to think much about life and hope. Everyone's life will most likely have an unhappy ending. This is actually a fact. And someone else's life ending can have a premature bad effect on other people.

Those are just a couple examples and I didn't really go in-depth. But the point is- no, movies shouldn't have to frame themselves around being as realistic as possible and about being as fair as they can. Movies can still be smart in spite of that. But we all know movies can change the world or the way people see it / think about it. We've all thought it was important at some time to say a movie is bad because we think it's sending a bad message. And yes, I'd rather blame the system that leads to movies pandering to our lowest common expectations rather than Disney for being old-fashioned and out of step with the changing times. But I'm not going to hold any disappointment I might feel that people don't appreciate the art and magic of Disney against people who think Disney sucks for moral reasons.

If someone cannot see that Disney cartoon feature are not meant to be a realistic representations of life as it is, I think that this person has got a big problem. (and should examine his head)

Call me stupid, but I don't see what's so morally wrong with the message of these features. Be true to your heart, show courage, be true to your friends and follow your dream and don't pick on those that are somehow different - just a few messages I get from Disney cartoon features. I've watched Disney movies all my life and I've been none of the worse for it. If certain academics think Disney features somehow have a bad influence on people's morals they should try to prove it. I don't think they will be able to do this.


By the way, I have an academic degree... not that it counts, of course

WARNING: The following post contains some explicit language and references to sex.

BelleGirl wrote:If someone cannot see that Disney cartoon feature are not meant to be a realistic representations of life as it is, I think that this person has got a big problem. (and should examine his head)

Oh c'mon- like the pro-war generation didn't think the same thing about the hippies back in that time? People do grow up in certain generations and times in American culture where they believe things about the world that aren't true. This is an honest fact. Can we openly call for people in groups of hundreds to get their heads examined?

BelleGirl wrote:Call me stupid, but I don't see what's so morally wrong with the message of these features.

I doubt that's their problem either. I don't think it's the result, as it seems, so much as it is the process mixed with the message the ending is sending (that's worth a chuckle- say it 3 times).

For example, I distance myself from anyone who complains that Disney films don't accurately portray sex. I quote directly (on Bambi) from a critic I quite love, Eric Henderson; "The Whitmanesque sampling of sugar-glazed skies, butter-crème flower-petals, and jawbreaker-eyed woodland eunuchs all serve a common purpose: to defer to Disney's idealized primer on instinctual reproduction without sexuality, or, as the 'wise' owl calls it, 'twitterpat': another chalk mark in the column of infantilism. In other words, Bambi the neuter (a male character who has unsurprisingly inspired precisely no proud parents to name their male children after him) is merely the most prominent example of Walt Disney explaining to kids 'you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals, so do it like they don't on the Disney Channel,'" and "Bambi's solitary moment of manhood: fighting another buck for the right to not fuck his doe-friend."

I don't get it either. But Disney are often very obnoxious about certain things. That can't be denied. And old-fashioned. I seriously take issue with them very seldomly but sometimes I think it's warranted.

BelleGirl wrote:Be true to your heart, show courage, be true to your friends and follow your dream and don't pick on those that are somehow different - just a few messages I get from Disney cartoon features.

Wait a second, you take Disney movies that seriously? As in, you think the morals are important and applicable to real life? I've never been in a sword fight with a dragon, gone on a cross-country survival mission to return home, matched wits with evil sorcerers and witches, been hunted by men with shotguns who thought I was a wild animal, been locked in a castle tower with only my animal friends to help me escape, or had to run around fighting devious rats, evil cats, snakes, giants, mob bosses, attack dogs, or headless living ghosts while making sure to not eat poisoned apples, touch spinning wheels, or lose my man to some skanky octo-hussy. So, it's hardly like those morals are actually applicable in the same manner.

I just watch the movies to see characters do whatever they're going to do anyway in a beautiful, touching, scary, exciting, amusing, artistic, or provocative way. Eric Henderson mentioned in his Alice in Wonderland review that he found the film slightly refreshing because of its "lack of force-fed moralizing." (His favorite Disney movie, by the way, is 101 Dalmatians) (the animated version)

BelleGirl wrote:I've watched Disney movies all my life and I've been none of the worse for it. If certain academics think Disney features somehow have a bad influence on people's morals they should try to prove it. I don't think they will be able to do this.

Well, I'm sure they feel life itself proves how we can't take Disney seriously. Even when they're saying something positive.

It's like I said about relationships in movies. Take a movie that has a Prince or Princess magically-motivated to marry or/and save their romantic interest seriously for moral reasons... it's like you think life is that simple. Like pictures of you so happy were what living life is really like. Take a marriage that simple and you're just begging to end up in a Lifetime TV-movie... "They had everything, the perfect life and marriage- UNTIL..." (Fill in the blank, really: he cheated on her, she realized he's gay, she's realized he's in the mob, he realized she's crazy, she realized he's a serial killer, he realized she's a man, she realized he's addicted to internet porn, she realized his daughter's a prostitute, he realized her daughter's a prostitute, they realized their children are sleeping together, she realized his brother is raping their daughter, they realized he's incapable of producing sperm and it destroys their marriage, they realized she can't have children and it destroys their marriage, she realized he's a drug dealer, he realized she's a crackhead, and so on and so on...)

"To captivate our varied and worldwide audience of all ages, the nature and treatment of the fairy tale, the legend, the myth have to be elementary, simple. Good and evil, the antagonists of all great drama in some guise, must be believably personalized. The moral ideals common to all humanity must be upheld. The victories must not be too easy. Strife to test valor is still and will always be the basic ingredient of the animated tale, as of all screen entertainments." —Walt Disney

"I have watched constantly that in our work the highest moral and spiritual standards are upheld, whether my productions deal with fable or with stories of living action." —Walt Disney

"The span of years has not much altered my fundamental views of mass amusement. Experience has merely perfected the style and method and the techniques of presentation. My entertainment credo has not changed a whit. Strong combat and soft satire are in our story cores. Virtue triumphs over wickedness in our fables. Tyrannical bullies are routed or conquered by our good little people, human or animal. Basic morality is always deeply implicit in our screen legends. But they are never sappy or namby-pamby. And they never prate or preach. All are pitched toward the happy and satisfactory ending. There is no cynicism in me and there is none allowed in our work." —Walt Disney

"Our heritage and ideals, our code and standards - the things we live by and teach our children - are preserved or diminished by how freely we exchange ideas and feelings." -- Walt Disney

"All of us who use the implements of mass communications have tremendous responsibility to utilize them more fully in the interest of common humanity in the light of present world conditions." -- Walt Disney

"And out of our years of experimenting and experience we learned one basic thing about bringing pleasure and knowledge to people of all ages and conditions which goes to the very roots of public communication. That is this - the power of relating facts, as well as fables, in story form." -- Walt Disney

"If I can't find a theme, I can't make a film anyone else will feel. I can't laugh at intellectual humor. I'm just corny enough to like to have a story hit me over the heart..." -- Walt Disney

BelleGirl wrote:If certain academics think Disney features somehow have a bad influence on people's morals they should try to prove it. I don't think they will be able to do this.

That's just the point: film scholars will never "prove" anything, because that's not their job; that's not what they do. Film Studies isn't Math, where somebody comes up with a formula and that formula is "true", and will never change again. Film Studies is not an exact kind of academic discipline. There are only theories, and people who have arguments in favor of a theory and people who have arguments that oppose the theory. But there is no "right" or "wrong" and therefore, nothing to "prove".

BelleGirl wrote:

Be true to your heart, show courage, be true to your friends and follow your dream and don't pick on those that are somehow different - just a few messages I get from Disney cartoon features.

Wait a second, you take Disney movies that seriously? As in, you think the morals are important and applicable to real life? I've never been in a sword fight with a dragon, gone on a cross-country survival mission to return home, matched wits with evil sorcerers and witches, been hunted by men with shotguns who thought I was a wild animal, been locked in a castle tower with only my animal friends to help me escape, or had to run around fighting devious rats, evil cats, snakes, giants, mob bosses, attack dogs, or headless living ghosts while making sure to not eat poisoned apples, touch spinning wheels, or lose my man to some skanky octo-hussy. So, it's hardly like those morals are actually applicable in the same manner.

I just watch the movies to see characters do whatever they're going to do anyway in a beautiful, touching, scary, exciting, amusing, artistic, or provocative way. Eric Henderson mentioned in his Alice in Wonderland review that he found the film slightly refreshing because of its "lack of force-fed moralizing." (His favorite Disney movie, by the way, is 101 Dalmatians) (the animated version)

No it's not that I take Disney movies "that seriously" My first point was, after all, that they had little to do with real life. Just that I don't find many wrong moral messages (wherever applicable within the fairytale context - even fairy tales can contain some morals) Of course I watch these movies primarily to be amused and excited, just like you. I don't think there is any harm in it or that it has a profound influence on anybody.
But take 'Dumbo' for instance. It's totally unrealistic (babies brought by the stork, flying elephant) yet the situation that Dumbo is picked on because he looks different from other elephants is an analogy to what also often happens in real life: poeple picking on a person because he looks 'weird'. Children who feel sympathy for Dumbo may (I say MAY) pick up a message from this that it's wrong to pick on others because they look different. I think that is in how far I take Disney cartoon features "seriously".


To Goliath:

I wasn't specifically thinking of film scholars. You can also analyse Disney films from an educationalist's or sociologist's view for instance. I think it's required of such scholars to back up their theory with some statistics/proof.

Wonderlicious, I considered that her wish did come true, but I was thinking how a stranger lied to her and said it was magic when it really was it. Though it could have been, wouldn't that be interesting, the apple's magic potion actually helped make the wish come true? Anyway, I agree on at least what you said about how it did come true and the message from it. Still, it says people can lie to you about wishing and wishing on magic things may not always be real.

Lazario wrote:Everyone's life will most likely have an unhappy ending. This is actually a fact.

No it's not. When was there a survey taken of people right before they died asking them whether they were happy or not?

Besides, Disney may also imply that a happy ending will come to you...in the next life. Think of Snow White's ending.

Yes, the world seems so dark and evil when we grow up for whatever reason. I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that grown-ups are so much more powerful than children and there is the responsibility to take on the bad in the world when we grow up. Or maybe it really is the shock that comes from being so protected when we are little, but honestly I don't think little kids can comprehend much evil naturally. Little kids think the best of things first. They are naive.

But anyway, yea it seems that way to some, but that is why it is good for Disney to promote positive messages and the idea it will all turn out good in the end. Yes, there's dark life, but then who knows what happens in the end, and besides, you can and should believe that good things will happen and current things will get better. Because you can't be unhopeful. You have to hope that you going to college is going to make something good happen for you and others, or that you going for that job will be good for you and others, or that you doing anything will turn out good.

Disney is smart in knowing the world may be bad, and not assuming things are good, but hoping they will be, because you always can.

And yes, like BelleGirl said Lazario, the fairy tales often represent things that happen in real life, they can be metaphorical just like many movies, especially artier ones are. And like she also said, they do have morals that apply to real life.

BelleGirl, actually Charles Perrault, an intellectual, who's fairy tales Disney based some of their works on, included morals at the end of each of the tales in the fairy tale collection he wrote.

Anyway, to Wonderlicious an all, Walt Disney was a smart man who was aware of intellectuality, even if he said he didn't always like it's certain usings, he knew of it, and so did his animators. So I always suspect there is a lot more to Disney films than we may think...

I mean, there's art-house...and Walt and his artists did make art. I mean there's Fantasia, and the same guys that made that also made all the other features, so there may be more to all those other features, too. That's also why I think more of Walt's features than the post-Walt ones, though the post-Walt regime could be the same smart or even aware of the smartness in Walt's past films. I dunno though. They are smart, but are they the same smart? Did they know of the same things Walt and his artists did?

For what it is worth, I feel the book that best captures and analyzes Walt's spirit and intent in his work is "The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American Way of Life" by Steven Watts.

BelleGirl wrote:Call me stupid, but I don't see what's so morally wrong with the message of these features. Be true to your heart, show courage, be true to your friends and follow your dream and don't pick on those that are somehow different - just a few messages I get from Disney cartoon features. I've watched Disney movies all my life and I've been none of the worse for it. If certain academics think Disney features somehow have a bad influence on people's morals they should try to prove it. I don't think they will be able to do this.

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. Terri Windling, an author and critic, uses Beauty and the Beast as an example. I wouldn't call this a prime example, and she admits that she likes the film overall, but she also states that she disagrees with some of what is done. The original tale has no real villains and the heroine is not perfect; the Beast almost dies because of Belle's forgetfulness, whereas Belle is unable to reach the Beast after being thrown by a vicious villain into a cellar. I think that her appraisal of Maurice is a bit unfair, as the father figure had long been a harmless and absolutely perfect father (the Cocteau version also has Belle agreeing to give herself up to save her father, though admittedly a ransom still has to be made).

Too much embodiment and attachment of Disney characters and ideals to the originals
"However, what is clear is that Disney sought to replace all versions with his animated version and what is
-Jack Zipes on Puss in Boots (1922)

I think that this is understandable, though not with a Laugh-o-Gram of all things. Snow White or Cinderella essentially have the spirit of Walt's life (rags to riches), but fairy tales have long been deconstructed and reinterpreted as a form of expression. The argument that Walt wanted his versions to become the definitive versions is understandable though ultimately a bit of a stretch, but it is very easy for one to say that he wanted his adaptations to become the definitive film or illustrated version. The embodiment of settings and characters of even the less popular films into three dimensional form in the Disney parks pretty much supports this argument; if Alice in Wonderland did so badly that it embarrassed Walt, why did he feature it so much in his parks from Day One? And then there's Winnie the Pooh, and Tinkerbell...talk about cultural colonisation.

Comparisons to original sources and their messages
Some of the time criticism revolves around Disney's adaptation of certain works' original messages. The changing of themes in Beauty and the Beast has been mentioned, but there are several other examples one could argue for. I love Peter Pan to bits, but I have to admit that Disney only really embraced the spirit of fantastic escapism and treated the theme of accepting growing up quite lightly. There's little reference to the sheer complexity and tragedy of the title character. In the original play/book, Peter had his wish come true, but is truly shown to be paying for it; he is a lonely and truly tortured soul stuck in a childish limbo and must watch everything and everyone he loves grow and die as he stays just a child.

Sexism
Some of the older films can be seen as somewhat chauvinistic; women are weak and do the cleaning, men save them and do iron-pumping activities, all is happy. Then again, they did come out before the cultural revolution of the 60s and the outburst of feminism from around that time.

I understand that these were just snippets about certain films (mainly fairy tale films), and they don't say much about every single Disney film on the whole. I do not necessarily agree with the statements these people say, but I hope that I've brought some understanding as to why some people may criticise the messages of the "classics".

Disney Duster wrote:Anyway, to Wonderlicious an all, Walt Disney was a smart man who was aware of intellectuality, even if he said he didn't always like it's certain usings, he knew of it, and so did his animators. So I always suspect there is a lot more to Disney films than we may think...

I mean, there's art-house...and Walt and his artists did make art. I mean there's Fantasia, and the same guys that made that also made all the other features, so there may be more to all those other features, too. That's also why I think more of Walt's features than the post-Walt ones, though the post-Walt regime could be the same smart or even aware of the smartness in Walt's past films. I dunno though. They are smart, but are they the same smart? Did they know of the same things Walt and his artists did?

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to deride anything by claiming that the Disney films are overtly simplistic. I'm not denying Walt Disney's intelligence. He and his artists were of course very aware of high culture, as everybody in the developed world is to some extent. Though they essentially produced films and entertainments aimed at a mass audience, I know that they appreciated high culture quite a lot, perhaps some less than others (dare I say it, but from what I've read in Disney history books, despite being a fan of classical music, Walt was probably less into culture than some other high-profile artists such as Joe Grant). Fantasia is the prime example in the marriage of popular and high culture. Members of the studio studied all types of film, popular and cultural, to gain inspiration and possible techniques (hence why sprinklings of German Expressionism find their way into the earlier features). I think that the same could be said about the post-Walt generation, though they were of course just as greatly inspired by the Walt-era films no doubt.

What I'm arguing against is people claiming that Disney films are more complex than they actually are. As I said, some of the best Disney films are insightful through their simplicity. They work because they act like age-old fairy tales and fables by transmitting very simple yet bold and effective messages about the world around us. Silly as it may sound, that can be reasonably hard to pull off, as it has to be poignant for adults despite being able to be digestible for children. The fact that Walt's people, or anybody else thereafter in the Disney studio, could pull it off is a sign of good film-making. But tooting them as being extremely intricate, deeply psychological or not understandable for children (I used "art-house film" as an example; I could have said a complex post-modernist novel, or a Franz Kafka story, or a Romantic-era classical composition) is really silly. Essentially, it's a poor argument that discredits the films, and if anybody were to use it in an academic assignment, I think that it wouldn't yield a good mark. [EDIT: I do agree that The Hunchback of Notre Dame is probably one of the few exceptions to this rule; I was shocked upon watching it as a 16 year old after many years to suddenly realise that Frollo was not just a mean man in a funny hat but a sexually repressed nutcase.]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

That's mindfuck. Everyone studies mindfuck.

Yes of course that was a very good post, Wondy.

Now, I know you said you don't necessarily agree with what you found, but I wanted to say I think Disney was trying to make certain things in the stories...good. And as we all know, what a person thinks is truly good may not always be the same.

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.

Also, I have reason to think Disney's films are deeply psychological, maybe not the most ever, but a signifigant amount. Also, remember Tchaikovsky music was in Sleeping Beauty, so it wasn't just Fantasia.

But thinking about it, I guess it would be kind of weird to make a lot of the films have high complicated intellectuality or music, because of either stories that really were made for children, or fairy tales which were told by the common. But then there is what the intellectual Perrault did to the stories, and the possible deep ,messages brought by him and the deep metaphors brought by the Grimm's. These tales were still told in high society, even in castle courts, and often in these tales characters do eventually live in royalty, where high learning and music and culture would definately be there.

And still, adults did write the tales. Perrault, J.M. Barrie, Hans Christian Anderson and even the Grimm's most probably did put such hugh adult things into their works, even if not realizing it, but they probably intended it, especially with all the evidence saying they did, even quotes where they say they did. It's the whole "meant for children and adults" thing, that Walt himself was trying to do, too.

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 is only if there aren’t deeper more intellectual parts to the films, which I think there are. There is subtlety and there are things so deep you have to dig deep to find them. I bet most “academics” just don’t think there is anything deep in them so they don’t even bother to look.

But Walt Disney was very aware of intellectualism, a lot smarter than not knowing about it, so he made his films with a lot of knowing, and knowing is smart.

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...

Wonderlicious wrote:In my opinion, the Disney films can be insightful in that they are essentially fables that grip because underneath their fantastic furnishings, they are essentially simple yet effective commentaries on the world around us. Pinocchio is the prime example here, and Dumbo, Mary Poppins, Cinderella, The Lion King and the non-gargoyle moments from The Hunchback of Notre Dame also spring to mind (I could also list even more and go into far more detail if anyone really wants me too).

I want you to.

As a matter of fact, here's an analytical thesis I wrote a few years back for savedisney.com (now archived at songofthesouth.net) - - one of my personal favorites - - about a recurring theme that I feel was key to the success and lasting resonance of some of Walt's very best films. "The Spirit of Youth":

http://songofthesouth.net/news/archives ... youth.html

>>Walt Disney's ability to connect with audiences of all ages is celebrated. While Walt objected to intellectual interpretation of his work, he was clear in attributing one constant to the success of Disney entertainment: a child's point-of-view...<< (much more at link)

If you haven't read it, you might also try "The Uses of Enchantment" by Bruno Bettelheim, a classic analysis -- not of Disney's films -- but of traditional folk and fairy tales and their symbolic, critical importance to a child's psychological development. Many of these ideas are also relevant to Walt's film adaptations and the role the classic Disney films have taken in perpetuating the ancient myths that help shape our common perceptions via a modern medium.