DVDizzy Forum

I believe so, but this teacher doesn't seem to think so:

Every semester I give students an assignment where they have to write a film review based on a favorite film of their choice. And every semester a good majority of the papers that come in have to do with the Lion King or some other Disney film. For crying out loud, don´t these kids watch anything that makes them think?

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/t ... 358.0.html

I think he/she is pretty much generalising. Disney may have this image of innocent family fare, but looking closely, there are plenty of themes explored that could fill an academic essay. The Lion King is given as a major example of the essay subject given back, but as somebody later replies, it explores very Shakespearean themes and not only because Hamlet was one of the inspirations behind it.

In fact, you can watch any of the Disney films and find plenty to discuss and that's one reason I still admire them today. I wasn't particularly big on The Hunchback of Notre Dame when I was younger, but watching it again recently, I really appreciated it a lot more as I took note of the adult themes explored within the film.

To be honest, every year for my film courses, I try to write at least one academic essay related to animation and in some way, related to Disney. I never hear complaints from my professors on that, since I typically get high grades on those assignments. And I even have to struggle to get those essays under the assigned page limit, since I end up writing so much.

Of course they can be academically examined. But I understand the teacher's frustration with students who pick the same movies over and over again.

It's not very challenging. If you're in college you need to expand your horizons. Especially when you're studying film. Watch a Buster Keaton film or something by Andrei Tarkovsky.

Also, doing an interesting analysis of The Lion King is tough. You'll easily come up with the same stuff everyone already knows about. Yes it's Shakespearian... what else is new? You need some skills before being able to come up with a new angle.

estefan wrote:

Every semester I give students an assignment where they have to write a film review based on a favorite film of their choice. And every semester a good majority of the papers that come in have to do with the Lion King or some other Disney film. For crying out loud, don´t these kids watch anything that makes them think?

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.

If there is one film that "makes you think" it is The Lion King.
Not often you see a film that teaches you so much about life, death, growing up, betrayal, love, friendship, conspiracy, and life in general.

In one of the bonus features on the dvd a lady tells (emotional) about the experience of a boy that lost his father and didn't know how to deal with it, and this film helped him understand.

I think that teacher never watched the film and does not know anything about the depth of the Disney classics. And that depth and mature message is what I love about the Disney Classics.

Many academics hate Disney. I believe a good portion of them are literature people who know about how much Disney would throw out when adapting a story for their animated films. I was at a board where I couldn't find anyone other than me who didn't think Walt Disney was the Michael Bay of his day; a kind of like Judge Doom type who wanted to paint over everything natural and pure with his brand of advertising and product for people to buy and admire. They were probably so stunned by how thoughtful and deep the original literature was, that when someone with so little ambition to make the films based on the work he was adapting complex and deep, that they saw him as a bit of a jerk. I know they're not the only ones. Does anyone here recall what Igor Stravinsky had to say about what Walt did with his piece when they made Fantasia?

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

They are stuck in their own little world and will never fully experience life.

There is more to these classics than they could ever imagine....

There's very little scholarly analysis of Disney that doesn't automatically think Disney = mainstream = The Man = evil.

Even 'Fantasia' is too frequently dismissed, snobbishly, as a failed attempt to appreciate high culture by a farm boy who should have known better.

I'm not sure if I'd teach it in a class exactly or assign a paper where they analyzed it. But I think almost anything can be analyzed and written about through an academic lens to shed light on another topic. You could use Disney to analyze how we look at issues of race/gender in culture, for example--looking at the stereotypes they've used in their films over the years. Or analyze them to see how they fit in with the different cultural expectations of their time periods.

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.

If there is one film that "makes you think" it is The Lion King.
Not often you see a film that teaches you so much about life, death, growing up, betrayal, love, friendship, conspiracy, and life in general.

I'd say about 30-40% of Independent films have more to say about such subjects. Films don't start and end with Hollywood you know.

In one of the bonus features on the dvd a lady tells (emotional) about the experience of a boy that lost his father and didn't know how to deal with it, and this film helped him understand.

I think that teacher never watched the film and does not know anything about the depth of the Disney classics. And that depth and mature message is what I love about the Disney Classics.

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.

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 sort of analyzed The Lion King for an English report. The Lion King seemed awful Zionist to me and Scar+Hyenas were portrayed as evil.


Triumph of the Will anyone?


Islamic reference?

To me it seemed like before the movie the Lions (Jews) evicted the Hyenas (Arabs) from Pride Rock (Palestine, now Israel) (Zionist movement) and during the film the Hyenas (Arabs) tried to take Pride Rock (Israel) back from the Lions (Jews).

I have a knack for overanalyzing things

I do believe that Disney films can be analyzed critically although I do recognize that there are probably many who attempt to do so but do it badly. While I admit that I have never looked for any critical analysis of Disney in the scholarly literature, I do know that the influential Soviet filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein as well as his frequent collaborator composer Sergei Prokofiev both thought extremely highly of Disney and his animated films. Prokofiev in particular was said to be so blown away by "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" on a trip to the U.S. that he arranged for a private midnight screening of it for himself and his friends. The two studied Disney's work for their own film and music work in "Alexander Nevsky" and "Ivan the Terrible" and Eisenstein in particular wrote many scholarly essays analyzing Disney's work.

So there you go...Disney films are worth analysing and should be taken seriously.

Several weeks ago I read an interview with an American historian (forgot his name) who considered Walt Disney a much greater artist than Picasso! I had to laugh at that, simply because his opinion is so contrary to what is generally considered as 'good taste' among academics.

Anyway, appriciation for 'high' culture and 'popular' culture don't have to exclude eachother. My oldest brother, for instance, loves both Disney and Picasso (he's not an academic but he finished the Academy of Arts)

You need to bring your teacher over to this forum. He/she will get his/her answer right there.

Of course they can! (Well, I mean, obviously some can more than others....For example, Brother Bear is a lot more complex and "analyze-able" than Chicken Little.)
Many Disney films are incredibly deep, and to write them off just because they are Disney films is absolutely ridiculous!

Again...another discussion with too much thinking involved.

Well, I did that when I was in university and I never got complaints about it. There has been written a whole lot by scholars on different elements of Disney animated films. One book I particulalry enjoyed was 'From Mouse to Mermaid: The Politics of Film, Gender, and Culture', edited by E. Bell, L. Haas and L. Sells and published by Indiana University Press in 2005. I used the book when writing my Bachelor thesis on Song of the South.

Maybe that professor is tired with students all picking the same film and all making comparable superficial analyses? The Lion King is given as an example, and making an analysis about the 'Shakespearian' elements from the film isn't exactly original anymore, not to mention it's very superficial, since one can read about that on every Disney fan forum. But that doesn't mean one can't analyse Disney films in an academic way.

BelleGirl wrote:Anyway, appriciation for 'high' culture and 'popular' culture don't have to exclude eachother.

That's the problem--most academics don't see high and pop culture as having any overlap. (Cue Armond White)

The truth is that these movies can be academically analyzed, through their depiction of women, race, the changes they make to old--perhap regressive--fairy tales, their use of color, etc. These movies may be thought of as "only for kids" by the mindless parents who buy them, but they were made by adults (many of whom I'm guessing have a college background) for--not just kids--but other adults as well. Unfortunately, people don't consider animation as a legitimate form of cinema for some reason.

Another problem is that, the few times I've seen anyone take Disney films seriously as a subject, it is almost always done with a degree of condescension. For being too capitalistic, sexist, racist, juvenile, etc. In other words, they are only taken seriously insofar they they are examined for how 'childish' they are (according to academists/the majority), and how they further cultural stereotypes. Disney films become forever intertwined with Disneycorp. Of course, that topic (cultural stereotypes) is a valid one, but there is more than negative subjects to find in Disney films.

The funny thing is, I doubt anyone (at this moment, anyway) would deny that Pixar films could be examined as a serious subject. But now that Disney isn't on top anymore, like they were in the '30s, '50s, and '90s, they're dismissed as just "for children." Hopefully Pixar'll get their own taste of that double-edged sword in the future.

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

toonaspie wrote:Again...another discussion with too much thinking involved.

Isn't that the point?

Oh, but (forgot something)... I see talking. Not thinking. Thinking is involuntary. You can't stop or control your own brain. Just what your body does about it. Like- sharing those thoughts.

All movies can be academically analysed realy. Anything from Citizen Kane to High School Musical.

It sounds laughable but it's true, it's just about taking the right approach. There's no point in looking for depth of character and meaning in the relationship between Troy and Gabriella, BUT there is a lot to be said for analysing the elements of the story that caused it to have such an impact on the "tweeners" of today's society.

If a TV movie can suddenly become one of the most popular franchises in Disney history there must be SOMETHING there that's worth analysing. Look at the youth culture of today, look at where elements of this culture overlap with themes in the movie. Look at the kids who love them, think about why they love them.

Like I said, there's no point in trying to write a pretentious shakespearean analysis of a paper-thin TV movie storyline, but given the impact it had on the world there's still plenty to look at. It's just a matter of finding an intelligent and original approach, deciding what your overall point/argument is, and defending it to a high academic standard.

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.

It's my experience that so-called "low" or popular culture suffers no lack of attention as a subject for academic discourse---I just wrote a paper on teaching Shelley's <i>Frankenstein</i> using Tim Burton's <i>Edward Scissorhands</i> as an alternate text. Disney's cultural legacy and financial import make the brand an easy candidate for scholarly inquiry. For the sake of grounding this discussion in real-world specifics I did a little fishing this morning in the online scholarly databases. Although I spent rather little time on it (shoulda been working on another project) and I limited my search results to articles with full-text electronic representation (cuz when I find it I wanna be able to *read* it), I turned up a number of interesting examples that ought to make some fun reading (depending on one's definition of fun):


Disney Animation: A Select Scholarly Bibilography

Clague, Mark. "Playing in 'Toon: Walt Disney's <i>Fantasia</i> and the Imagineering of Classical Music." <i>American Music</i> 22.1 (2004): 91-109. Print.

Edwards, Leigh H. "The Unites Colors of <i>Pocahontas</i>: Synthetic Miscegnation and Disney's Multiculturalism." <i>Narrative</i> 7.2 (1999): 147-68. Print.

Hurley, Dorothy L. "Seeing White: Children of Color and the Disney Fairy Tale Princess." <i>The Journal of Negro Education</i> 74.3 (2005): 221-32. Print.

Langer, Mark. "Regionalism in Disney Animation: Pink Elephants and <i>Dumbo</i>." <i>Film History</i> 4.4 (1990): 305-21. Print.

Lutts, Ralph H. "The Trouble with <i>Bambi</i>: Walt Disney's <i>Bambi</i> and the American Vision of Nature." <i>Forest and Conservation History</i> 36.4 (1992): 160-71. Print.

Merrit, Russell. "Lost on Pleasure Islands: Storytelling in Disney's 'Silly Symphonies.'" <i>Film Quarterly</i> 59.1 (2005): 4-17. Print.

Ohmer, Susan. "'That Rags to Riches Stuff:' Disney's <i>Cinderella</i> and the Cultural Space of Animation." <i>Film History</i> 5.2 (1993): 231-49. Print.

Russo, Peggy A. "Uncle Walt's Uncle Remus: Disney's Distortion of Harris's Hero." <i>The Southern Literary Journal</i> 25.1 (1992): 19-31. Print.


(Incidentally, I only came across a single article specifically about a Pixar film during my admittedly limited and unscientific survey, but it's my general impression that the student researcher would have an easier time finding relevant secondary sources for a Disney paper.)

And it's not as if that's all Disney's good for, academically speaking. The company history, the parks and other real estate ventures (such as Celebration) open wide an array of avenues for inquiry through various disciplines: economics, education, history, anthropology, &c. I came away from this morning's search having donwloaded 20 articles I'll read with more interest & enjoyment that one's average academic research: a couple articles on "It's a Small World" from <i>Ethnomusicology Forum</i>, an <i>Anthropological Quarterly</i> article titled "Walt Disney World: Bounded Ritual Space and the Playful Pilgrimage Center," "Disney World and Posthistory" from <i>Cultural Critique</i>, a circa '76 <i>Drama Review</i> article on Disneyland's "America Sings" attraction (which I never got to see, though I have the audio), a couple articles on Frontierland from western history journals, and so on...including a six-page article published in 1945 written by Walt himself titled "Mickey as Professor." Though dated, I highly recommend Stephen Fjellman's fine book <i>Vinyl Leaves: Walt Disney World and America</i>, an anthropological study which was one of the required texts for <a href="http://wise.fau.edu/~dwhite/courses/Dis ... l">this</a> multidisciplinary course at FAU called "Seminar in Disney Studies: From Classical City to the Magic Kingdom."