|
Author
|
Comment
|
Souperman6969
Registered User
(12/12/05 6:10 pm)
|
disney's contributions to folklore
I need to write a paper on disney's contributions to folklore and I can't find any information to back up my ideas. So if anybody knows any good websites that support or disagree with disney's contributions to folklore let me know.
|
evil little pixie
Registered User
(12/12/05 11:41 pm)
|
Disney
Here's somewhere to start looking:
www.surlalunefairytales.c...tales.html
Good luck!
|
Rosemary Lake
Registered User
(12/14/05 6:47 pm)
|
your ideas?
[[ I need to write a paper on disney's contributions to folklore and I can't find any information to back up my ideas. ]]
So what are your ideas? I'm sure we can find evidence to support them, whatever they are. :-)
|
firegoddesslily
Registered User
(12/21/05 7:05 pm)
|
Re: your ideas?
I would also very much like to hear of your ideas.
Disney's contribution to folklore? Sounds proposterous to me.............What did disney ever do to folklore accept sanitise it?
|
princessterribel
Registered User
(12/22/05 2:58 am)
|
disney
Disney's contribution to folklore? Sounds proposterous to me.............What did disney ever do to folklore accept sanitise it?
Oh dear...May I just say that for me this discussion board provides the opportunity for people to share their ideas, stories and opinions on topics of folklore. It seems to me that firegoddesslily's opinion is neither valid nor helpful to moving this discussion along. Might I suggest that you go and read the archives on Disney and the come back and contribute something worthwhile...for example, state the reasons for your views and opinions, which would make them useful for everyone rather than just leaving them floating about in the open air.
Now, in response to the post...As I suggested for fire goddess you should read the archives, there have been some really interesting discussions in the past. Then perhaps you could be more specific on what you wanted to look at. Also Jack Zipes' 'fairy tale is myth, myth is fairytale', is a good book to begin with, he has a chapter called 'breaking the Disney Spell'.
Hope that gives you somehting to begin with.
|
Rosemary Lake
Registered User
(12/22/05 12:52 pm)
|
Is original poster still here?
I'd still like to hear the original poster's ideas, before he/she gets distracted by old discussions.
'Disney' is a legal fiction. For almost a century, a lot of different people have done a lot of different things and put a label 'Disney' on them. Some of those things have been good for other things in some ways and bad for other other things in other ways. :-)
There are minnie things the poster might be seeing that did good things for things the poster is interested in. I'd like to hear what some those things are. It would be fun to look for support for them, whether I agree with them or not. :-)
|
nenafay
Registered User
(1/6/06 5:24 pm)
|
Re: Is original poster still here?
Jack Zipes has an written an entire Chapter about Disney and fairy tales in his book Happily Ever After: Fairy tales, Children, And the Culture Industry Basically, it says that Disney's fairy tale animations were about creating his universal brand, and not enriching people's lives. That they rob the viewer of the chance to imagine the fairytale themselves and, even worse, prevent them from picturing themselves as the hero or heroine, which defeats the purpose of fairytales in the first place.
Here's a link to a radio show: http://www.mla.org/radio_show_176
As for Disney sanitizing fairytales, it's a process that's been going on for centuries. The Grimms and Hans Christian Andersen , as well as many of their predecessors, modified stories to fit the attitudes of their age, class and culture.
Best of luck
|
Gypsy
Unregistered User
(1/11/06 10:17 pm)
|
disneys contributions (or not) to folklore
This is an interesting question.
First, you have to look at the original stories that Disney drew from. Take Cinderella for example. This story has been considerably toned down. In the actual story, which I believe is by the Grimm Brothers, the stepsisters cut off their toes and heels to try and fit into the glass slipper.
In some ways, I suppose, he has contributed. In the world of reality and technology we live in now, there is little room for fairytales. Fewer and fewer children believe in them. But Disney brings those stories back to children in a movie, even though the movie may be a little incorrect in it's details.
So, really, it's king of both.
|
princessterribel
Registered User
(1/12/06 3:28 am)
|
um...not really.
Although this post is old I, now being a cinderella expert, would just like to correct a few factual errors. The bros Grimm version of Cinderella was actually one of the later european versions of the tale. Giambattista Basile was considered to have written the 'first' european Cinderella, followed by Perrault later in the 17th century then finally in the 19th century Grimm wrote their version of the tale. However, Basile was definately not the first version, it is believed that the first literary version of the tale was from 1000 years prior to the one located in Italy. This one was the story of Ye Xian, who has a wicked stepmother, golden shoes etc and this story is from China. The writer of the tale gives the impression that the story is ancient when he writes it down although it was written in the Tang Dynasty when the practice of foot binding began so there are noticable links to that part of chinese culture.
As for Disney, he did not use the Grimm version but the French Perrault version which contains the fairy godmother, glass slippers, pumpking coach etc....none of these things can be found in Grimm.
However, I do agree with you that Disney has had kingly (not a word) success over the fairytale since he began producing fairy- tale films since 1937. :)
|
janeyolen
Registered User
(1/12/06 7:04 pm)
|
Re: um...not really.
Actually, some of us agree with the rougher assessment of Disneyfication. So I think you needn't jump down her throat for not liking Disney.
Jane
|
princessterribel
Registered User
(1/13/06 10:22 am)
|
!
Mortified if I have offended anyone! I was in a bit of a rush when I responded so I guess its a little to the point.
|
Veronica Schanoes
Registered User
(1/13/06 2:22 pm)
|
Disney
I would say that Disney's great contribution was the association of specific songs with specific tales.
Other than that, I'm not a big fan of what they've done, except insofar as I really enjoyed their Little Mermaid.
|
bakasama
Unregistered User
(1/14/06 3:56 pm)
|
Disney Musicals
Disney is the only studio that I can think of that can do a successful musical even now. It just that it's often a fairy tale with catchy songs and musical numbers. If one must give credit to folklore for Disney, it would be offering the public a family friendly version that kids can enjoy. Yes, I know there people that want to see a "darker" version of these tales in cinema form. I myself like violence once in a while.
|
Veronica Schanoes
Registered User
(1/14/06 4:47 pm)
|
kids
As a little bit of a digression, is it me, or do kids seem to be getting wimpier these days? When I was young I loved nothing better than macabre gore, and I had an attraction-revulsion relationship to fear--I loved the Wicked Witch of the West precisely because she terrified me. But these days I keep on running into not only adult dumbing down and saccharining of everything from fairy tales to "The Wheels on the Bus" but I also keep running across actual children who are actually frightened by stories like "Snow White and Rose Red" and things like that.
Is anybody else having this experience?
|
Writerpatrick
Registered User
(1/14/06 6:15 pm)
|
Re: kids
It's not the kids, it's the "Parents" (which tends to be mostly mothers, and fathers who go along to please the mother) who want things cleaned up and have conditioned their kids not to like it. Most pre-teen boys still like the gross stuff. Of course easier access to too much R-rated stuff could cause an oversensitivity.
|
TeacherLibrarian
Registered User
(1/14/06 6:46 pm)
|
Re: kids
Maybe some of them are, but an older colleague once told me that she saw "Snow White..." when it was first released and was "absolutely terrified." That was back when Disney did the 50th anniversary edition.
In the school library that I work in, the grade 2 students (7 year olds) are studying Cinderella variants. Most of the kids are familiar with the "Disney" version. When I tell them that the original tales were 'gruesome' & share the bit about the cutting off of foot parts & pecking out eyes - a vast majority say "YUCK" - but a number of lads (yes, it always seems to be boys!) are thrilled with the notion of blood & gore in fairy tales.
I'm just grateful that most of the kids already have a basic knowledge about some of the classic fairy tales. It's amazing (& disheartening) how many kindergarten students start school without knowing even nursery rhymes.
|
bakasama
Unregistered User
(1/14/06 8:47 pm)
|
Examples with Oz
Sure, I've seen examples of this. Take for example, "The Wizard of Oz". I assume the posters here are familar with the MGM movie. Compare the movie to the original book. You'll see how different the movie is to the book.
Some examples are:
The origin of the Tin Woodsman.
How he became a man of tin was because his ax enchanted by the Wicked Witch of the East. It was because fell in love with Munchkin maiden. The ax cut off a part of body and he had a tinsmith to make a replacement part. This happened everytime he lost a body part until he was no longer a man of flesh.
Tin Woodsman saves the Queen of the Field Mice.
This part of the story was never in the MGM movie. The Queen of the Field Mice was being chased by a wildcat. The Tin Woodsman heroically saves the mouse from the wildcat by chopping his head off. In gratitute, the Queen of the Mice calls her subjects to help haul the Cowardly Lion from the poppy field. They had to do this because the Lion too heavy drag out. (no deus ex machina from Glinda!)
In the book, the Wizard commands Dorothy to kill the Wicked Witch of the West not get her broom.
Wicked Witch of West attacks.
She sends waves of enemies before she sends the Flying Monkeys. She sends a bunch of bees to attack Dorothy but they get scared off. Then she sends forty crows, they get their necks broken by the Scarecrow. Then she sends wolves, they get killed by Tin Woodsman's ax. Finally, she sends the Flying Monkeys. They capture Dorothy and the Lion and trash the Tin man and rip the stuffing out of the Scarecrow.
Dorothy kills the Witch.
Dorothy kills the witch as in the movie. The difference is that she kills the witch in a fit of anger because the Witch tripped her and got one of Dorothy's silver shoes. After seeing the Witch die, she just pours more water on what's left of the witch and sweeps it outside.
The Cowardly Lion kills a giant spider.
While passing through a forest to get to Glinda's palace in the south of Oz. Some forest animal's ask the Cowardly Lion to help save them from a giant spider. The Cowardly Lion kills the spider by swatting it's head off.
As to the question of the upping the wimpy factor a trend. I just think it really on who's writting or editing the stories. I remember as a kid listening a storybook tape about Sleeping Beauty. I forget who published it, I remember it had book with the tape. Anyway, I remember the evil witch being punished to dance with hot iron shoes until she died. At the time, I just thought "Cool she got what's coming to her" not on how gruesome her death was.
|
Veronica Schanoes
Registered User
(1/14/06 9:41 pm)
|
wimpiness
That's what I mean, though--it's not just the parents (and I'm not a huge fan of the sideswipe at mothers, Patrick). It's the kids themselves that I can't explain. I mean, Disney's Snow White terrified me too, as well as The Wizard of Oz--but I also loved it. I just don't get it. It's not just that the books and movies are watered down--it's that the kids don't like and don't seek out the macabre stuff anymore. I mean, I know that my parents would not at all have liked some of the things I was bringing home from the library, but I read them anyway. Odd. I suppose, as you all are suggesting, that the one can lead to the other.
|
AliceCEB
Registered User
(1/15/06 10:11 am)
|
Re: wimpiness
I have to disagree about the "wimpiness" of today's kids. Looking at cartoons aimed for 7 to 10 year olds--Batman, Xiaolin Showdown, Yu-Gi-Oh, Loonatics Unleashed, etc.--and the video games that are staples for this age group that tend to be about shoot 'em up, monsters, decapitations, etc., I quickly come to the conclusion that their childhoods are saturated by violence. What I do see is choppier narratives, and catering to shorter attention spans.
And I'd take parents (male or female) out of the "wimpiness" business--they get enough grief. There is a tendency, in upper midde-class, suburban environments on the east and west coast to over-shelter their kids--driving them everywhere and not exploring the world outside--but violence is part and parcel of their kids' lives because of the entertainment provided.
There's always been a tendency to provide treacle for children: it dates back to early childhood readers. And what's on the market depends not on the kids so much, as the adults whose vision of what kids wants and needs are. At the moment, the very young seem to be innundated by saccharine, and the middle grades by violence, with the occasional knock-off from reality TV.
Best,
Alice
|
Chris Peltier
Registered User
(1/15/06 2:33 pm)
|
Re: wimpiness
Before attending The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe I was forewarned against taking my eight year old daughter, due to the graphic nature of the film. Since I had first read the book at the age of seven, I ignored these warnings. What I found instead was a story stripped of its original power.
First of all, Turkish Delight no longer had its narcotic effect (something that would haunt Edmund for the rest of his life). In a scene that never occured in the book, the White Witch tells Mr. Tumnus that Edmund has betrayed him for "Sweeties". Secondly, the long walk to the White Witch (during which Edmund nursed dark fantasies of how he would punish his family - in particular, Peter - by making them his slaves) was reduced to literally a few hundred yards. By portraying Edmund as a misunderstood young boy who longs for a father away at war (never stated in the book) instead of the evil little beast that he was, Aslan makes the ultimate sacrifice over family squabbles!
The director claimed that rereading the book as an adult he found it light on character development. In truth, he excised the unpleasant, darker and more complex relationships that he found there, and offered up a sanitized version with a big battle scene - 'cause that's what kids want, right?
It's not that the media isn't saturated with violence, it is just a violence without consequences. Kids want their "Sweeties", made to order.
~Chandra~
|
Chris Peltier
Registered User
(1/15/06 2:52 pm)
|
Re: wimpiness
Oh, I forgot to mention: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was co-produced by Disney, so the film follows Disney's grand tradition of watering down an otherwise good story to supposedly make it more palatable.
|
