|
Author
|
Comment
|
artsfan
Unregistered User
(9/30/03 3:54 pm)
|
in defense of Disney movies
Hi. I know that many on this board are either haters or lovers of Disney films. A while ago, I thought about this topic agreeing and disagreeing with some members of this board. What brings this up is I recently bought the Sleeping Beauty on DVD and while exploring the features I came across the audio commentary. I must say that Disney movies mean alot more to me now than they did when I was a kid. I was totally enthralled by the movie watching it now as a young adult. One commentator talks about the whole idea of Disney-fying a tale. I absolutely agree with the idea that Disney movies are not literal interpretations of these tales rather Walt Disney's version. Maybe some of you believe that children should be read the original tales before seeing the disney movies. From my view point it didn't matter. If a kid is going to like something, they're probably going to like it no matter what. I love the Disney movies while still loving the original tales. What i don't understand is that some authors come out with totally "loose" adaptations of these stories and are praised on this board. You have your re-telling of Hansel and Gretel which is really based around the holocaust etc. etc. I feel that like every good story teller, one should put a twist on the stories. Telling a story from a book is way different than story telling through an animated film. While I do agree that The Little Mermaid was a sort of far fetched adaptation I feel that these movies should still be celebrated for the impact that they have had on our society and still do. In closing, i would just like to say that Disney movies are what they are and should still be appreciated for the ideas that they bring to the table. They are clever and entertaining and Sleeping Beauty is still one of my favorite movies, although it varies from other versions, that doesn't make it any less compelling or powerful.
|
Helen
Registered User
(9/30/03 7:37 pm)
|
Re: in defense of Disney movies
Dear Artsfan:
I suppose that, for me at least, the issue isn't one of adaptation: it's natural to the genre, and the symbolic progressions from generation to generation add depth to the significance of the tale. Knowing the importance of, say, Cinderella as a model of independence in one period, as opposed to a later incarnation which posits her as an example of obedient virtue adds resonance and meaning, both to my interpretation of the tale, and to my understanding of the respective societies which added to or subtracted from earlier versions. I believe that the question is one of exactly *what's* added or subtracted ... and that's an area chock-full of implicit value judgements, and wholly subjective.
I can probably (certainly) be classified as one of the proponents of "loose" retellings: I think that, frequently, they contextualize the issues of the original tales and make them more relevant, more comprehensible to modern society. You use the example of Hansel and Gretel set during the Holocaust - do you mean Lisa Goldstein's "Breadcrumbs and Stones," from _ Snow White, Blood Red_? There are probably a number of tales out there addressing the issue: if this is the one you have in mind, I'd have to say that I admire it, appreciate it, because Goldstein addresses the effects of trauma passing from one generation to the next in a manner that is simultaneously sensitive and provocative. Her conclusion is one of the most poignant things that I've ever read, and I think that it's very relevant to this topic: she writes,
It seemed to me that all my life my mother had given me the wrong story, her made-up tales instead of Hansel and Gretel, had given me breadcrumbs instead of stones. That she had done this on purpose, told me the gaudiest, most wonder-filled lies she knew, so that I would not ask anything more ... (p. 406)
That's the crux of my problem with Disney movies: I think that, all too often, they're breadcrumbs instead of stones, comforting pablum rather than intellectual or emotional supports. Is there anything inherently wrong with that when their purpose is to entertain? Well, no ... unless that's all there is, in terms of purpose and effect. When Disney adapts, all too often they deliberately remove the disturbing, problematic, important elements of the stories, not to improve them, but to make them more saleable, more acceptable to the public. It's a technique beloved by editors since the Grimms. Their versions, enjoyable though they may be, frequently "dumb down" tales to make them more palatable, rather than more relevant. And while Disney *certainly* isn't the only thing out there, it's one of the more popular presentations of the genre ... and it contributes to the simplistic, anachronistic image of fairy tales. Fairy tales as relevant to society? Nonsense, they're made up, fantasy, escapism ....
I like a good Disney movie now and again ... but I rather prefer the images of fairy tales as ongoing pieces of a social dialogue that reveal deeper truths ... tales that stay true to the original cores of their earlier variations while updating them, twisting them, turning them to reveal unexpected angles. I worry that all to often, people accept the dominant popular version without realizing that there are other options. I don't think that there's necessarily a solution, short of Disney releasing each movie with a disclaimer, or possibly considering their revisions in light of their impact on fairy tale "canon" ... but that's okay. Plenty of room for both, after all ... and those who want to go deeper into the proverbial "forest" in search of stones as well as breadcrumbs luckily have a path to follow.
Best,
Helen
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(9/30/03 10:35 pm)
|
Disney
Don't get me wrong, I love much of Disney and deplore an equal amount. I loved Snow White's artwork, Cinderella's songs, Sleeping Beauty's stylizing, the Little Mermaid's modernization. What I didn't like was the endings...the lack of consequences. And I didn't like the simplification of the characters.
About the endings, it appears that Disney is rather Stalinesk (or Leninesk). I recently went to Swan Lake with a friend whose parents are choreographers in Russia. Apparently, during the Soviet Union years, unhappy endings were not allowed, and the choreographers went through many strange gyrations to get the stories to end "happily". Somehow, I get that sensation with Disney too. There are never those dark forbodings one finds in the original tales - no red hot shoes; no deaths, but immortal souls; no bloodied feet or pecked out eyes. Just as the Prince in the USSR Swan Lake never had to face the fact he rushed to judgment and married the wrong swan, the Disney heroines never get revenge and the evil doers never get their just desserts.
But each Disney movie is a time piece reflecting a perception of the ideal girl-woman of her time: Snow White is industrious and innocent; Sleeping Beauty is a little wiser and reticent to fall for her "given role" in life; the Little Mermaid is down right rebellious and independent-but only for love and not for a higher course; Cinderella relies on the assistance of others, but is otherwise virtuous; and Belle has the supreme double standard - a real yuppie - the village chauvanist isn't good enough, but as long as the has "position" she will withstand abuse - ugh (loved the music though and it was pretty to look at).
So there you go. Hate Disney - no way, but understand that Disney is not the absolute ideal.
One other note, I am in the process of writing a short story based loosely on Bluebeard, but it also is based loosely on something my uncle told me about his return to Berlin after leaving it in 1939 on the literally the last plane to Paris. Sometimes fairy tale adaptations are a way for the author to try to deal with something painful, or hard to understand in his or her own life. I have found that the genre is very flexible and incredibly adaptable to a range of human and in this case inhuman emotions. I think that Disney rarely chooses to explore fully the dark side of those emotions (deals with them superficially) is more the basis of the criticism than anything else.
Jess
|
gormghlaith
Registered User
(10/1/03 9:33 am)
|
Re: Disney
I just watched Lilo and Stitch for the first time the other night, and I was delighted by it. To see Disney bring their animation talents to a movie about a weird little girl and her hard-working older sister- never mind the alien and current-issue dna experiment storyline- was beyond refreshing. Maybe Disney should stop trying to inflate the traditional fairytales with 'Disney magic' and focus on making up their own.
|
artsfan
Unregistered User
(10/1/03 10:01 am)
|
Disney
While I agree that the Disney versions are not exact interpretations of fairy tales, the brains at Disney almost can't just simply tell a story as it has always been known. Imagine viewing "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" if it had been that all the dwarfs looked and acted the same. In the original fairy tale, there was no mention of unique personalities. Translating this directly to film would have greatly hurt the movie overall and would not have been at all interesting. Reading a fairy tale is altogether different than viewing a film based on a fairy tale (especially an animated one). Reading and viewing a movie are altogether different to begin with. So it would make sense that changes (sometimes even drastic ones) are made at the animators' (in this case) discretion.
As for Disney leaving out the scary stuff: I would have to disagree to a certain extent. What scary things in the original fairy tale of "Snow White" were left out in the Disney film? The Wicked Queen's command to kill Snow White, the hunter drawing his knife to slay Snow White, her escape through the forest, Snow White eating the poisoned apple are still there. To some degree I think the Disney version is scarier than the original fairy tale. When the dwarfs chase after the Wicked Queen in disguise, and she is trapped on the cliff, is one scary detail that the Disney version added. The original fairy tale of "Sleeping Beauty" was hardly scary, but Disney retold it so that it became, in my opinion, the scariest Disney fairy tale. And I think that any changes made from the original version only added to the intrigue and fit in perfectly with the original plot.
A lot of the later Disney films, like "Beauty and The Beast" and "The Little Mermaid" had a tendency to add more cartoonish and kid-friendly characters (Flounder, Sebastien, Lumiere, Cogsworth, etc.), but not all scariness is lost. The scene where Belle escapes from the castle and is attacked by wolves is not at all kid-friendly. I recently viewed Disney's "Cinderella" again, and the scene where the two step-sisters are destroying Cinderella's gown reminded me strongly of the treatment Carrie (Stephen King) faced. This added to the feeling of abuse because they were physically attacking her, a detail not in the original fairy tale. While overall I would say that Disney films are good for children, there are lots of things a parent could find objectionable. It is also important to note that when Disney first began creating animated feature films, they were not aimed at a specific audience. Any details that were taken away were not because they wouldn't have been suitable for children, etc., but because it didn't fit in with the version of the story they were trying to tell.
Many of you on this board have criticized Disney for adding/taking away to/from original fairy tales, and yet you have done the same. That's the nature of story-telling.
|
Rosemary
Lake
Registered User
(10/3/03 9:56 pm)
|
cultures
One point, some 'dark' stuff is an artifact of cultural differences. Red hot iron shoes, and being rolled down hill in a barrel, and other things that seem fantastic to us, were common means of torture and execution. So their audiences at the time would not find it particularly 'dark' for the villian to be punished that way. It would just be like the murderer in an Agatha Christie novel being hanged.
When I was a child, I felt that a story in a book was one thing, and a Disney movie was something totally different. A movie was based on a story, but it was longer, a big deal. The book story was only a small part of it. I didn't feel like Disney was changing the story. He was just making a movie. Might call it a whole new story, so now there were two stories. I loved both, but saw them as very different.
R.
|
JennySchillig
Registered User
(10/16/03 11:17 am)
|
This one may be a little long, but here goes...
Artsfan, you've read my mind. For a long time I've been getting up the courage to post a thread: "Is it OK if I like Disney?"
You've brought up some good points, ones I'd like to embellish upon. Now keep in mind, I'm not always in favor of changing the story--if it's nothing but an arbitrary change, like too much of "The Sword in the Stone" was, then I'm against it. (That movie committed the cardinal sin of a Disney movie...it was blah. And the animation style was all wrong for the story.) But there are some defensible reasons to change the story, and some other points I'd like to make...
1. As Artsfan said, fairy tales and other stories have been changed and re-shaped over the years to fit the tellers. Writer and critic Harold Schechter, in a book about kidvid, said of Shelley Duvall's Faerie Tale Theatre films (quite good in themselves!): "Purists may object to some of the liberties taken with the stories, but folk tales have been retold and reshaped for centuries, to reflect the culture they're told in. To treat them as static robs them of their vitality."
2. What makes for a good read doesn't always make for a good movie.
Pinocchio is an excellent example. It may have been changed from
the book, but it's doubtful Carlo Lorenzini/Collodi's original (serialized
in a magazine, literally being made up as he went along) would have
translated easily into film without being changed. One need look
no further than the spectacular failure of Roberto Begnini's version
to see this. Likewise, the original book Mary Poppins, very episodic
in nature, couldn't have been literally translated into film with
much success. I believe Disney's version was the best possible film
version that could have been made from the book, Travers' carping
aside.
3. Disney gets accused of taking the darkness out, but that isn't
really the case. As Artsfan said, there was plenty of darkness
and scariness in Snow White. And just look at the stepmother's emotional
abuse and cold calculation in Cinderella...that's as scary for me
as any race through a creepy forest. And to go back to Pinocchio,
one of Disney's darkest...consider this. The real villains in the
movie, the ones motivated by malice and greed, the ones who do mean
harm (Foulfellow, Gideon, Stromboli, the Coachman) all get off scot
free. Lampwick, on the other hand, is guilty of no malice,
guilty of nothing more, really, than youthful foolishness. And he
gets the worst punishment we see in the film...he will spend the
rest of what will probably be a very short life as an overworked
beast of burden. That's the most horrifying thing about the movie
when you really think about it. No wonder Leonard Maltin called
Lampwick's transformation "one of the cinema's supreme moments
of horror."
Look at Bambi, too. There may have been plenty of changes from the
book, but there remain the ever-present threat of death at Man's
hands, seen with Bambi's mother (a real terror for kids who are
identifying with Bambi). There's a harrowing scene where a pheasant
panics, flies off, and is immediately shot down. There's implied
slaughter during the scene when the animals flee the hunters. And,
according to animation expert Ernest Rister (you might want to google
his articles, they're fascinating reading) there were two things
planned for the film but never executed: the showing of a hunter's
corpse (actually storyboarded) and the killing of Thumper. Yes,
Thumper. This is the movie that gets passed off as a cute
animal romp.
And these may not count since they're not fairy tales, but look at Old Yeller, 20,000 Leagues, and Treasure Island--they're quite faithful and don't skimp on darker elements. Old Yeller doesn't soften the ending one bit--Yeller must die, and Travis must be the one to shoot him, completing his transition to manhood. 20,000 Leagues is less faithful to the Verne original (again, it would be difficult to translate literally to the screen) but keeps Nemo as a complex hero/villain. Treasure Island is the best of all, thanks to Robert Newton (Arrr, me 'earties!) being a total amoral rogue and scoundrel that we just can't help but like, and showing Jim's ambivalent feelings for him.
4. Disney sometimes gets blamed for changing things when it wasn't they who changed it in the first place. I've read bashers who gripe about how "Disney changed Cinderella so much...in the original, Cinderella's stepsisters cut off their toes and heels and got their eyes pecked out!" But that was the Grimm version (hardly the original, anyway) and it wasn't Disney who changed things, it was Perrault. Charles Perrault actually wrote the story as many of us remember it today. Disney's Cinderella, with a few embellishments, is really rather close to the Perrault version. Take Hunchback of Notre Dame as another example...the much-revered Laughton version also changed the ending! In fact, most film versions have changed the story in one way or another. And the myths and misconceptions about Pocahontas were around long, long before the Disney movie came out.
5. Disney is playing to a different audience...as different an audience as Grimm's to Perrault's, for example. When many of these tales were written, hardship was more common, death in childbirth, infant mortality, etc. People lived side-by-side with horrible death. Such things are not part of the psychological makeup of a Disney movie's audience. Or take the Little Mermaid, for example. Andersen's story has its own beauty, that I enjoy independent of the movie, excellent in its own right. But understand...when Andersen wrote his story, cross-racial and cross-class marriages were utterly taboo...unheard of. Thus there could be no other way of ending the story but unhappily. That taboo doesn't exist today.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all Disney movies are flawless, or that I like everything the company has done, or agree with all of its decisions. But I can enjoy the original stories for what they are, and the Disney movies for what they are, considering these points. Especially since Disney has held a special place in my heart since earliest childhood.
For some interesting reading, you might want to check out www.mouseplanet.com/fairytales/index.htm . Maybe it's a little biased since it's on a Disney-friendly site, but it's a series of articles by Kevin Yee, a college professor who's studied folklore. He makes some interesting points about how the stories reflect their cultures (look at the differences between Grimm and Perrault) and looks at the Disney movies as simply another step in the evolution of fairy tales.
And as a side note...I've always been utterly baffled how people insist on reading "domestic abuse" into Disney's Beauty and the Beast. Belle doesn't submit to the Beast's ill treatment or try to change him. She flees from it. It's only after he makes an effort to change (saving her life, for one thing) that she responds to him.
Anyway...thanks for bearing with me!
Edited by: JennySchillig at: 10/16/03 1:39 pm
|
janeyolen
Registered User
(10/17/03 5:31 am)
|
Re: This one may be a little long, but here goes...
"And as a side note...I've always been utterly baffled how people insist on reading "domestic abuse" into Disney's Beauty and the Beast. Belle doesn't submit to the Beast's ill treatment or try to change him. She flees from it. It's only after he makes an effort to change (saving her life, for one thing) that she responds to him. "
As a side note to your side note: Disney made at least one (and I think more) direct-to-video stories using the B&B characters. The one my daughter (who has worked with battered women) objected to had a storyline that I am sure you would also see as a primer on domestic abuse. Belle has all the household implements be quiet--as well as her bird in the cage--because Beast will otherwise be unhappy and yell at them. Or hurt the bird. She says stuff like "He doesn't mean to be mean..." etc. And they all tiptoe around. It really is quite ugly.
Jane
|
JennySchillig
Registered User
(10/17/03 8:57 am)
|
A side note to your side note to your side note...
Wellll...I'm not fond of the direct-to-video "cheapquels"
as it is, and don't consider them to be true "canon".
Seeing the "cheapquels" and some of the other more questionable stuff Disney's done lately (there can BE no Jungle Book without Harris and Prima, no matter how much I like John Goodman)...it's like being a parent of an honor student who suddenly starts bringing home C's. C's may be good enough for the average student, but not when you know your honor student is capable of doing better! Fortunately, there was Lilo and Stitch...all kinds of funny!
And Ms. Yolen, speaking as a children's librarian, we've got lots of your books in our library and "Owl Moon" is on our schools' summer reading list every year! Enjoyed "Mirror, Mirror" and your dialogues with your daughter too!
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(10/17/03 9:26 am)
|
One Disney "fairytale" I love
is in the new Fantasia. The pantomime to the Firebird Suite is really quite beautiful, somewhat original (although it in corporates some fairytale/myth aspects) and is glorious to listen to. What I find even more interesting is the parallel, obviously intentional, to the Mount St. Helen's volcanic explosion, the devastation and rebirth of the area.
Jess
|
denag
Registered User
(10/17/03 9:38 am)
|
and one i loathed...
...was not a fairy tale at all, but their take on the story of anastasia. now that was weird, and had some quite gruesome scenes with rasputin. they made him into a sort of undead villain, rotting away as the story progressed, with bits of him falling off. eeuuch. and quite unnecessary really - the "true" story is gripping enough without it.
i was really disappointed, because i do love disney, in the same way i love 7 brides for 7 brothers, and all those musicals with great music, big choreography and colour-co-ordinated costumes. pure escapism.
|
tlchang37
Registered User
(10/17/03 11:31 am)
|
Anastasia
Just a note: the animated Anastasia was put out by Don Bluth and 20th Century Fox. Not Disney.
Tara
|
Ken
McGuire
Registered User
(10/17/03 12:48 pm)
|
Re: Derivative tales
It is probably true that deep inside, for each of us there is *THE* Snow White, Beauty and Beast or Sleeping Beauty through which we see all of the others. My *THE* Sleeping Beauty is Basile's Sun, Moon and Talia. Since it's older than Perrault, Grimm or Disney, I can smugly dismiss all of the others as being derivative.
In spite of this, the real truth is that each fairy tale story, movie, poem, etc., once fixed in time and space, ultimately has to stand alone, and succeed or fail on its own merits. And I believe that the success or failure of a story, for me, is whether it really speaks to me.
Although I get a lot of pleasure from making plot or character comparisons, looking for clues which date these timeless stories, categorizing, etc. my greatest enjoyment comes from my first and subsequent reading of a tale simply for the pleasure of reading and/or reading it to someone else and sharing that pleasure.
Edited by: Ken McGuire at: 10/17/03 12:49 pm
|
denag
Registered User
(10/20/03 4:13 pm)
|
re: anastasia
ah! that does explain a thing or two. i thought it was an odd film
for disney, but obviously didn't look too hard at the box!!
|
Saoirse Breena
Unregistered User
(10/26/03 11:59 am)
|
Just a side note...
I admit, I have only recently found the original versions of the Fairy Tales. So far, I've read Snow White, I've read the Sun, Moon, Talia version of Sleeping Beauty, and I've read Cinderella. But I just wanted to make this comment here.....
There are only a few basic storylines in literature
Man against Man
Man against Self
Man against God
God against Everyone
If you break it down this way, all Fairy Tales are exactly the same.
|
RymRytr1
Registered User
(10/27/03 10:04 am)
|
Re: Just a side note...
Curious list that... makes me think!
What about Man against the opposite of God (or Evil)?
And the idea of God against everyone intrigues me.
Which tales tell that?
Thanks for your response.
Rym Rytr
|
Laura
Registered User
(10/27/03 2:24 pm)
|
Re: in defense of Disney movies
Heading back toward the original topic for a moment, Bright Lights film journal (always a great website) has a fun article called "Goosing Mother Goose: The Fairy Tales of Tex Avery," which does a nice job of describing then-contemporary attitudes of other animators to the product of the Disney studios. The criticisms aren't new or even at all recent. Definintely some issues that have to be addressed in any defense or attack of animated folk/fairy tales.
Article: www.brightlightsfilm.com/...tales.html
Laura
|
denag
Registered User
(10/27/03 4:59 pm)
|
re:side-note
i just wonder if, by reducing fairy tales to such succinct formulae, that a lot of the richness and variety could be missed. i'm not sure they are all exactly the same. even variations on the same tale can bring something new, depending on the way they are told, don't you think?
|
Saoirse Breena
Unregistered User
(10/28/03 7:20 am)
|
Side-Note
God against everyone, based on the explaination my Creative Writing professor, is basically Apocalyptic Literature.
|
briggsw
Unregistered User
(10/30/03 1:09 pm)
|
Types of stories
Man against nature: _The Perfect Storm_; _Deep Impact_; other natural-disaster stories.
What I'd heard was
Man against man
Man against nature
Man against supernature
Man against himself
|
RymRytr1
Registered User
(10/30/03 2:18 pm)
|
Re: Side-Note
Ahh, I see. I was looking for litature outside of the
Generic Revelations. Remember this though, you Professor
is just a human with a point of view based in part, upon
his personal feelings. There is more to the "Apocalyptic" stories than the "bad" side only.
You have to form your own opinions by studing the source.
In the law we say that "best evidence" is the actual
witness and not what Jim said that Sharon said that
Bill said, just after he saw Dilbert shoot the Phi Cappa's Goat.
|
|
