DVDizzy Forum

Well in thinking about it Princess Jasmine could be a good example she refused to marry an suitor her father had for her. She respected him and loved him very much but she is a good example of not going with the trend and following her heart. Her outfit my not be appropriate but either way her heart was in the right place knowing what's right and wrong and her outfit went fits the movie.

How about Tanana in Brother Bear?

I did a final paper with similar roots for a class. One thing you may want to consider is though even though the women are portrayed, to a point, as being strong. They are still in the stereotypical roles from the original Disney movies (very beautiful, good figures, even Belle has a classic beauty to her). They do not necessarily need a man to complete their lives, however, each of them ends up with one at the end of the movie. The difference between the older Disney movies and the newer ones. For what you are looking to do with this paper it may actually be easier to back up the theories by comparing the portrayels of the early Disney women (Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, etc.) versus the newer movies (Mulan, Pocahontas, Esmerelda, etc.)
It would be a different approach but more contrast and comparison for a paper that could give a better depth on if society has really changed with the animation.

in my opinion, the most admirable female personality is Lilo's sister Nani, cause she's got such a responsability raising lil' Lilo and she ends doing it well.

edm114 wrote:For what you are looking to do with this paper it may actually be easier to back up the theories by comparing the portrayels of the early Disney women (Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, etc.) versus the newer movies (Mulan, Pocahontas, Esmerelda, etc.)
It would be a different approach but more contrast and comparison for a paer that could give a better depth on if society has really changed with the animation.

That's a good idea actually. My ideas haven't been quite coming together right, but maybe a compare and contrast type of paper would be more intriguing. Thanks for the insight.

Not a problem. I was doing my paper on women in television/focusing on music videos and it was extremely hard. Then I did a compare and contrast and it brought everything together a lot easier. Good luck with the paper

In a very quick manner:

Ariel: had to physically change to be accepted by the society she wanted to fit in (extreme plastic surgery, dieting and such), not liberated at all.

Belle: On the surface is liberated, but ultimately fails to seek something other than all the other unenlightened fairy tale heroines. (see my thread on this).

Pocahontas: does pretty good, but only if you do not compare the Disney version with the historic Pocahontas.

Mulan: Another one that is just on the surface. She is shown to be the equal of her fellow soldiers (however: one is a baby, the other retarded, and the third one is played by one of the more openly gay actors today. None of them what is typically considered a "real" man) Ultimately the movie is conservative and avoids showing a woman as "an equal to any man". But the main thing about Women's rights issues it that they seek equal rights for women, their purpose is not merely to narrowmindedly point out that women are the equals of men (which would be a mistake, in any case, since physically, biologically and psychologically "men" an "women" are not equals, but complements: yin and yang).

Disney is a conservative corporation, and thus has to retain society's more conservative views.

Can't seem to edit my reply, but the post on B&TB is here:

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... ight=belle

Welcome, snowbot. Interesting you brought this up. One of my good friends here discussed this in her women's studies class, so we had a similar discussion over dinner as well. Her professor was rambling on about "Why did she have to leave HER life to fit into HIS world? Why couldn't HE become a mermaid with her? blah blah blak" to which my friend replied "He didn't know she was a mermaid!" It kind of shot a whole in her argument and shut her up. I also brought up the point that you can't blame these things entirely on Disney... the stories have been around for centuries. Mulan, of course, is a strong (perhaps the strongest) example of female empowerement in Disney.

My film studies unit in English has been analyzing a lot of Disney stuff, and we discussed, among other things, race in Disney films... and how there haven't been any black characters in the animated films. I'm white, but I would like to see the representation of blacks in animated films, I wonder why this has been the case so far? I guess The Proud Family is a step.

(This is not to divert from the main discussion... maybe I should start a new thread for race).

Let us know how your paper goes, and good luck.

-Aaron

I would also like to add that in the case of most of Disney's animated classics, the story doesn't take place in 21st century democracies. Even if the women were looked down upon or oppressed (which I don't think is done, at least not purposefully, in any of the films), it would often be culturally or historically accurate for the film.

-Aaron

Also, diverting back to the Ariel thing (not sure if this is in my earlier post):she wanted to be human long before she met him. She didn't want them to be together under the sea, but on land. And I'm sure once he found out she was a mermaid, he would have gladly tried to become one. That issue is never explored due to the whole Ursula battle thing.

Another excellent point, Adam.

-Aaron

Prince Adam wrote:Also, diverting back to the Ariel thing (not sure if this is in my earlier post):she wanted to be human long before she met him.

Regardless of her relationship to the Prince, Ariel's desire to physically alter her body and nature in her quest for happiness to such drastic measures cannot be construed as good "role model" behavior for today's (little) girls and for tomorrow's women. I still perceive her presentation in the story as a negative message to contemporary women or, to women from H.C.A.'s time, for that matter. But, also, remember that the story predates Disney and even Hans Christian Andersen, so this particular fault does not lie in Disney's interpretation.
Altering the plot so much to avoid this would ruin the original story. But in the H. C. Andersen story, the whole thing ends in tragedy, thus you could attach a kind of moral: "Accept yourself, or suffer negative (tragic) consequences", if you'd like.
In the Disney version the fact that the thing ends in a happy note negates the impact of the changes the mermaid goes thru (Hey! Look, Ma, no consequences!), and in fact sends a message that: "If you want to be happy, you have to (physically) change yourself in a similar manner".

You may, of course, disagree with this interpretation.

Disney and most contemporary American Cinema have lost the sense for Tragedy. And Disney has changed the notoriously tragic ending in the original stories (to their detriment) to be able to get the expected Happy Endings in many of the films after Little Mermaid (The Hunchback Of Notre Dame, The Lion King, etc.). People who have never read fairy tales (or these novels and plays) think they have happy endings. Most fairy tales have miserable endings.

The sequel does have negative consequences appear in the next generation: Ariel (is shown as unhappy since she) has now renounced or denied her Past (her nature and physical shape), and her daughter has inherited this latent unhappiness and is also totally oblivious about her own real nature. The sequel sucks, though, and cannot really be recommended as a continuation of the story.

The other option (for us as critics or simply as viewers) is to simply not attach a moral to the story(!), and thus you do not have to justify any elements the makers put in.
But Disney and other storytellers since the Bros. Grimm (and even others before them) have chosen to add these "morals" to stories that really shouldn't have them. Disney has chosen the role (and burden) of a "Family Entertainment" provider, and the Public sees this as a responsibility to dictate a morality that matches their own. Somehow, Disney stories are supposed to be "moral" (do they need to be?).
The fault in Disney's interpretation is that it is supposed (by the General Public, and, lately by the Disney Corporation itself since it has been pressured into doing so) to be moral. It is supposed to be sending a positive message, but it cannot help to fail in doing this. It sends out mixed messages, and ultimately negative ones, as well.

Did H. C. Andersen mean to have moral in his stories? I think not, though (some) of his stories have a heavy Christian bent to them and it is easy to find a moral of sorts if you look for it (or at least a whole bunch of religious imagery).
But what, for example, is the moral of the Little Matchstick Girl? A little girls lies in the snow dreaming of Christmas and dies. There is absolutely no moral in it. It is simply a tragic little vignette. And that is it's own value.

People who think these stories need to be moral, are missing the point in most cases.