Walt Disney’s “The Princess and the Frog”

 By: T.Y. 


            Finally in 2009, Walt Disney films introduced their first African-American princess in “The Princess and the Frog”. This triumphant action of progress by Walt Disney, which has been condemned for its sexism and racial ethnocentrism in the past, anticipated an ecstatic welcome from audiences. Initially the film received great praise. But as time has passed, it has received overwhelming amounts of disapproval by critics. Blogs, articles, and even academic journals have criticized Disney’s attempts at integrating African-American women and culture to their film collection. Disney’s “The Princess and the Frog” is swamped in controversy.

            The film was created by Walt Disney Animation Studios, and was their first princess themed movie to come out in over a decade. (disneyanimation.com) the story is about a young, black waitress, living in New Orleans in the 1920’s, who is independent, determined, and hard working. Tiana, the main character, is a talented cook. Since her early childhood years, Tiana and her father dreamt of someday owning a family restaurant. She kisses Prince Naveen, who has fallen victim to a curse which turned him into a frog. Tiana also turns into a frog, and the two travel through the great swamps to seek the help of a voodoo witch. At the end of the film, they must fight the evil voodoo villain-magician, who placed the curse on Prince Naveen. The film is quirky, light-hearted, and follows the traditional musical theme that Disney animated films were so well known for since the 1940’s (Corrigan 308).

            Although the film follows the traditional style of older Disney films, the exciting NEW aspect of the film is the feature of a black princess- a black female main character. The fact that Disney animation was going to present a black princess was an iconic symbol of progress for, not just Disney, but the American Society as a whole. For too long has the ethnocentric representation of white producers/directors/writers affected society.  Professor Neal Lester provided a great example in his article “Disney’s The princess and the Frog: the Price, the Pressure, and the Politics of Being a First” of how featuring white princesses has affected people’s perceptions. When students were asked to close their eyes and picture Cinderella, they pictured the blonde, white, female portrayed in Disney’s feature film “Cinderella”. These results indicated that the cultural symbol of Cinderella has been defined by Disney. Disney is the “globally dominant producer of cultural constructs related to gender, race, ethnicity, class and sexuality” Professor Lester also explained how Disney’s cultural construct and ethnocentric views have revolved around Disney creators and their “unquestionable privileging of patriarchy and whiteness”.

            As seen in the film, “Mickey Mouse Monopoly”, Disney’s past representation of blacks has been minimal and negative. Examples include characters such as the cackling crows in “Dumbo”, and the whimpering hyenas in “The Lion King”. Let’s also not forget the complete lack of black people all together in “Tarzan”, which takes place in Africa! Even Disneyland’s main restaurant, Frontierland, featured a figure of the former-slave, Aunt-Jemima. The figure was removed only after numerous complaints from civil rights groups. (Giroux 108-109)

            “The Princess and the Frog” is Disney’s first truly positive representation of an African-American female. The characters Tiana and Prince Naveen are both attractive, idealistic figures. They do not have any traditional stereotypically degrading black features such as large lips or slang speech. Tiana is strong-willed and determined. Throughout the movie, her motto is about how hard work is the best way to reach your goals. She has a positive outlook, and a strong nature. According to author and self-proclaimed feminist Andi Zeisler, women who are strong, independent, and heroic are the ideal examples that the media should be portraying (96-97). That is exactly what Tiana is.

            The most important aspect of ensuring positive integration of minorities into Disney would be to include members of that minority into the creative process. According to the book Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Mass Media and Society, “ Women, including African Americans, can achieve parity only if they have the freedom to show themselves through rich, textured portraits and in many different views of appearance, character, and action….” (52)  African Americans and minorities must be shown in positive roles in multiple examples, not just one or two instances. The success of African-American representation through characters in shows in the past had a direct correlation with the increase in African-American staff members working for the shows. Examples include “The Cosby Show” and “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Aire”. (Alexander 50-52) Disney is properly representing the African-American community, and can prove this because they have hired an African-American, Rob Edwards, as the lead writer for “The Princess and the Frog”. Coincidentally Edwards was a writer for “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Aire” in 1990 and 1991. (www.imdb.com)

            It seems that Disney has finally concocted the right formula to a family-friendly movie. “The Princess and the Frog” was hailed for its politically correct messages of race and gender. The film received an admirable 84% scoring on the trusted website, Rotten Tomatoes! Such contributing critics to the scoring included Ann Hornaday from the Washington Post who wrote: “You can exhale now. The Princess and the Frog is a triumph on every one of the myriad levels it has been asked to succeed on.” Claudia Puig from USA Today wrote: “Where Pinnoccio was about wishing on a star, The Princess and the Frog emphasizes backing up wishes with hard work. That proviso is a thoughtful message for young moviegoers.” (www.rottentomatoes.com)

The movie made 25 million dollars its first weekend at the box office. (www.today.msnbc.com) As Movie Reviewer for the New York Times, Manola Dargis wrote: “Disney finally recognizes that every little girl, no matter her color, represents a new marketing opportunity”. (www.movies.nytimes.com)

            But the magic of Disney’s success did not last long. The entire production budget of the film was 105 million dollars, and the film had a pathetic domestic total gross of 104,400,899 dollars. (boxofficemojo.com) Appraisal by critics and audiences went from good to bad- really bad. In modern day America, where free speech is encouraged, and people come from all walks of life, there is always bound to be diverse points of view. Audiences will always interpret media differently. The film only seemed to be Disney’s perfect formula for success, but it is evident that people have been extremely offended by the film. Disney’s “The Princess and the Frog” has become a major controversial hot topic,.

            The disputes over the film began during production. In 2007, rumors were posted on Wikipedia, stating that Tiana’s original name was “Maddy” who had an occupation as a chambermaid. (Eurweb.com) Whether the information was rumors or facts did not matter. Wave after wave of negative reviews were found in regards to the information on blogs such as Black Voices (bvonlove.com), OCWeekly (blogs.ocweekly.com), and racebending.com. The anticipated release of the film to the public did not discharge the negativity surrounding the film. Outrage came from an array of people who were offended by multiple aspects of the film. The new Disney princess was not met with a royal welcome.

            There are two moral lessons narrated in the story of “The Princess and the Frog”. The first is the importance of diligent, hard work; Wishing is not the key to success. Dreams can only be obtained through tireless effort. The second stresses the importance of love. Whether it is the love of family, or a partner, love and having loved ones, has precedents over all. This message has not been received well by all audiences. Some feminist groups argue that the way in which this lesson is taught in the story reveals an entirely different message. One interpretation argues that Tiana’s personality was not meant to be admirable, but simply an example of a work-aholic, career oriented girl. (Gehlawat) Through the story, Tiana wants to follow her dreams, but learns that what she really needs to complete her life is true love. Thus finding a true love is less important than pursuing career dreams. Since the dream of owning a restaurant was originally her father’s, the story depicts a pattern of Tiana’s life dictated by men throughout her life. It is also argued that Tiana’s natural talent as a cook and a desire to own a restaurant is nothing more than a need to be a caretaker for others through a simple domestic chore. (Matyas 39) Diseny’s new princess has not meet the standards of those who wanted to see the long-awaited depiction of a truly independent, strong woman

            More so than the gender roles, race is the main source of controversy for the film. Disney’s first film to feature an African-American princess is seen by many people and the media as a truly progressive step by Disney. To have such an immense media power depict a black person in an un-biased manner would bring the African-American culture to the mainstream. The film is seen as Disney’s ability to finally depict black people and culture as equals to whites. Tiana, the African-American princess could stand tall and proudly amongst the all-white princesses of Disney’s past films. But some audiences are upset that the film featuring a black girl, only features a frog in a swamp for the majority of the film. It is argued that the actual on-screen time of the black, female heroine, was simply not enough. (www.nytimes.com)

The other main character sharing screen time with Tiana, Prince Naveen, is “not really black” according to multiple bloggers on the AOL site Black Voices. (www.bvonlove.com)  The voice acting of Prince Naveen was actually performed by a white Brazilian man. (Exclusive Behind-the-Scenes Look at ‘Princess’) In the film, the African Prince’s skin color is noticeably lighter than Tiana’s. Some people consider the marriage between the two characters an interracial event. Some are outraged by this. As cited in the New York Times article, “Her Prince has Come. Critics too”,  African-American avid blogger Angela Helm wrote “Disney obviously doesn’t think a black man is worthy of the title of prince….His hair and features are decidedly non-black. This has left many in the community shaking their head in befuddlement and even rage”.

The location of the story has also ignited issues of racial stereotyping. “The Princess and the Frog” takes place in New Orleans. New Orleans continues to be a predominantly African-American community that is still dealing with the effects of Hurricane Katrina. This is seen as a disrespectful and insensitive move on Disney’s part. Former columnist at The Charlotte Observer, William Blackburn stated in an interview with the London’s Daily Telegraph “Disney should be ashamed. This princess story is set in New Orleans, the setting of one of the most devastating tragedies to beset a black community”.  (www.nytimes.com)

New Orleans and other black southern communities are associated with Voodoo. Whether perceived as religion or witchcraft, voodoo has historically had a negative connotation with black people. Stereotypes suggest that all African-Americans practice/believe in voodoo. This stereotype is affirmed in the film “The Princess and the frog”. Such stereotypes have been prevalent in horror films such as “The Skeleton Key” and “Angel Heart”, but to find such stereotypes reinforced in a children’s movie is shocking. As Time Magazine author MJ Stephey wrote in his review, “What’s with the Voodoo thing?”.

The reinforcement of stereotypes by Disney is a minor part of a greater controversial issue. Many people view the film as not just a Disney film featuring an African-American character, but Disney’s attempt to define black culture. It has been argued that this definition of black culture is falsely created under white ideologies. This included the fact that the depiction of the social standings of blacks and whites in the film were completely wrong. The film has ignored the concept of segregation entirely, despite the story taking place in the 1920’s. Multiple articles have been published in the Journal of African American Studies, on this topic.  (Gehlawat) (Gregory) (Barker) (Breaux)

This indignation is understandable. Disney’s only representation of Asian and Asian cultures in films has been “Mulan”. Mulan was not a princess, nor did she even associate with anyone who was not Asian in the film. The depiction of Asian cultures was ghastly. For example, the Chinese medical tents had Korean flag symbols painted on the side of them-upside down! As a Nisei Asian American, I personally found the movie incredibly insulting. I can only imagine that if members of the African-American community find “The Princess and the Frog” to be a distressing example of black culture, they must be outraged.

Despite the many fall backs of the film’s reception, some members of the African-American audience are applauding Disney for “The Princess and the Frog”. Many have argued on blogs featured on moviefone.com that concepts such as interracial marriages teach the message of tolerance. The concept and depictions in the film may not be perfect, but they are still a giant leap in improvement in comparison to Disney films featuring African-Americans from the 1930’s. Black celebrities such as Anika Rose have defended the film as a progressive step in American culture. (www.nytimes.com) As blogger Kevin Polowy wrote “Aren’t we all just overreacting here? After all, this is an animated movie for kids about people who transform into frogs...so should race even be an issue?” (blog.moviefone.com)

Disney’s film “The Princess and the Frog” has received both condemnation and appraisal. Much controversy has come about over the messages of sexism and race. Though Disney may have come a long way in incorporating ethnic cultures into their films, they still have more work to do. Of course with the size of the Disney corporation and their dismal past misrepresentation of minorities, it will take Disney a lot of work and time to regain the trust of the skeptical public. There is still a large portion of the world population which loves Disney, and continues to buy their products.

Giroux and Pollock wrote in “Mickey Mouse Monopoly” in regards to “The Princess and the Frog”:

It is difficult not to be cynical about what appears to be less a tribute to African American culture than a barely disguised attempt to round out the Disney Princess market base by targeting young black girls who may find Tiana dolls and products less alienating than the current Princess options.

Disney is a corporation. They make money by selling various products. If marketing to African-Americans is viewed as victimization, then Disney has been specifically attacking Caucasian population for years. It means that Disney has come to understand that in the world of business, money does not discriminate- so neither should they. The key words to the above statement are “less-alienating”. It means that girls of minority can feel a small welcome and a minor part of the Princess world Disney has created. This is a good thing! It is true that Disney has misrepresented the black culture and community. Disney has failed to properly represent minorities into their films. So now along with the African-Americans, Native Americans, Middle-Easterners, and the Rest of the Asians, I too await for a true Disney film that properly depicts our history, cultures and peoples.

Sources:

Alexander, A., Hanson, J. . Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Mass Media and Society. McGraw Hill. New York. 2009.

Arellano, Gustavo. "Dishney: The Princess and the Frog (And the Controversy) - Orange County News - Navel Gazing." The OC Weekly Blogs. Web. 12 Feb. 2011. <http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2009/08/dishney_the_princess_and_the_f.php>.

Barker, Jennifer. "Hollywood, Black Animation, and the Problem of Representation in Little Ol’ Bosko and The Princess and the Frog." Journal of African American Studies 14.4 (2010): 482-498.

Breaux, Richard. "After 75 Years of Magic: Disney Answers Its Critics, Rewrites African American History, and Cashes In on Its Racist Past." Journal of African American Studies 14.4 (2010): 398-416.

"Does Disney's 'Princess and the Frog' Deserve the Controversy?" The Moviefone Blog. Web. 12 Feb. 2011. <http://blog.moviefone.com/2009/09/24/princess-and-the-frog-controversy/>.

Corrigan T., White P. The Film Experience. Bedford/St.Martin’s. Boston. 2004

Dargis, Manohla. "Movie Review - The Princess and the Frog - That Old Bayou Magic: Kiss and Ribbit (and Sing) - NYTimes.com." Movie Reviews, Showtimes and Trailers - Movies - New York Times - The New York Times. Web. 8 Feb. 2011. <http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/movies/25frog.html>.

"DISNEY REP ADDRESSES ‘FROG PRINCESS’ RUMORS: Character Breakdown Appears on Wikipedia and Causes Concern." EURweb.com -Black Entertainment News. Web. 12 Feb. 2011. <http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur33357.cfm>.

"Disney's First Black Princess...Has a Prince Who's Not Black." BV on Love. Web. 12 Feb. 2011. <http://www.bvonlove.com/2009/03/19/disneys-first-black-princess-has-a-white-prince/>.

Exclusive Behind-the-Scenes Look at "Princess" Disney Enterprises Inc., 2009.

Gehlawat, Ajay. "The Strange Case of The Princess and the Frog: Passing and the Elision of Race." Journal of African American Studies 14.4: 417-31. Print.

Giroux H., Pollock, G. The Mouse That Roared. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. New York. 2010.

Gregory, Sartia. "Disney’s Second Line: New Orleans, Racial Masquerade, and the Reproduction of Whiteness in The Princess and the Frog." Journal of African American Studies 14.4 (2010): 432-49.

"Her Prince Has Come. Critics Too." The New York Times. 29 May 2009. Web. 27 Jan. 2011.< http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/fashion/31disney.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1299568463-6is52XQZOuUa5TCLPX0Vuw>

"History." Walt Disney Animation Studios. Web. 25 Feb. 2011. <http://www.disneyanimation.com/aboutus/history.html>.

Lester, Neal. "Disney's The Princess and the Frog: The Pride, the Pressure, and the Politics of Being a First." The Journal of American Culture 33.4 (2010): 294+. Print.

Matyas, Vanessa. "TALE AS OLD AS TIME: A Textual Analysis of Race and Gender in Disney Princess Films." McMaster University: Graduate Major Research Papers and Multimedia Projects (2010)

Mickey Mouse Monopoly. Dir. Miguel Picker. 2001. USA. Film.           

M.j. Stephey. "The Princess and the Frog - Top 10 Disney Controversies - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. Web. 12 Feb. 2011. <http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1946727_1946724_1946701,00.html>.

"Princess and the Frog”€ Rules the Box Office - Entertainment - Movies - TODAYshow.com." TODAY.com: Matt Lauer, Meredith Vieira, Ann Curry, Al Roker, Natalie Morales - Video, News, Recipes, Health, Pets. Web. 12 Feb. 2011. <http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/34264728/ns/today-entertainment/>.

"Rob Edwards - IMDb." The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Web. 1 Mar. 2011. <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0972395/>.

"The Princess and the Frog (2009)." Box Office Mojo. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. <http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=princessandthefrog.htm>.

The Princess and the Frog. Dir. Clemens, R., Musker, J. . Walt Disney Pictures. 2009.

"The Princess and the Frog Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes." ROTTEN TOMATOES: Movies - New Movie Reviews and Previews! Web. 25 Feb. 2011. <http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1196003-princess_and_the_frog/>.

"“The Princess and the Frog” & Racial Stereotypes: Fans Make a Difference :: Racebending.com | Advocating for Equality in Entertainment." The Last Airbender Movie | Activism. Web. 12 Feb. 2011. <http://www.racebending.com/v3/film-and-television/out-of-sight-and-mind-racial-stereotypes-in-the-princess-and-the-frog/>.

Zeisler, Andi. Feminism and Pop Culture. Seal Press. Berkley. 2008. 

Disney & Pixar: The Dysfunctional Household Name

By: A.P.

It is no secret that the partnership between Disney and Pixar turned out to be the biggest and most influential combination in the feature film industry. If you were to ask a person would they see a movie if Pixar was behind it, I would bet the 95% of the time, you would get “yes” as your answer. Ever since 1995, Disney and Pixar have been amongst the Top 50 grossing films of all time, and their average gross of $602 million is the highest in the industry. Most would say that it was a match made in heaven. I would say it was more than that. The strong commercial and critical success of the duo has influenced Disney so much, that they are part of the reason why you really see original Disney animated movies anymore (Well besides Dreamworks riding on its back.) Disney and Pixar have definitely evolved into a kid’s entertainment juggernaut, but if it wasn’t for a little bit of downsizing and re-management, none of this would have happened.

            Pixar actually started off as 1/3 of the computer division of Lucasfilms in 1979 called The Graphics Group, and after working with Lucasfilms and other projects like Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn, the division was purchased by Steve Jobs (Source). As a computer software company, one of the buyers was Disney. The Pixar Image Computer, the software Pixar was dealing at the time, didn’t sell well, and in a bid to drive up sales, John Lasseter, now a creative officer and director, showed off the technology to SIGGRAPH, a computer graphics convention to much acclaim. From then on, they started making animated commercials for other companies (Source).  It wasn’t until Pixar mad a $26 million dollar deal with Disney to produce three computer animated films, that the seeds of success were planted into rich soil. Because of this, Toy Story was thus created. This of course was a success, and would lament the powerful partnership of Pixar and Disney.

            Pixar’s Toy Story revolutionized the industry, and the story didn’t stop their either. They continued their three movie deal with A Bugs Life, and Toy Story 2. Disney noticed the success Pixar was bringing in and was not willing to let them go. Pixar and Disney started to have disagreements as early as Toy Story 2. Pixar wanted to have more control over the profits, as both Pixar and Disney had a 50% profit split, while Disney also owned sequel and collected distribution fees. Pixar was in charge of creation and production, while Disney was in charge of Marketing and Distribution. Pixar contested this many times, but Disney found their agreements unreasonable, and did not listen. Pixar of course did not leave because although the profits were split, they were still a lot of money, as both companies were benefiting from their symbiotic relationship. This would of course lead to the acquisition of Pixar by Disney, and Pixar’s expansion (Source).

            The events that occurred only indicated that Disney knew what they would be giving up as far as profit if they were to just have a distribution deal with Pixar. Pixar’s demands were justifiable, as Disney had no part in creating the movies they distributed, thus they did not deserve a 50-50 profit, as this is akin to someone creating a car, and to have your best friend go around town telling everyone to buy this car, then demanding that you get 50% of the proceeds. Either way, Disney was smart, (and greedy) enough to see that the potential profit from Pixar was enormous, and they were in their right mind to demand more money from the company. With the success of Toy Story, A Bugs Life, and Toy Story 2, this prompted Disney’s new marketing approach.

            Disney began to focus less on making their own original animated movies. Disney animated movies came out annually ever since Disney’s Oliver and Company. Up until 2005’s Chicken Little, there was a 2 year gap in movies straight from Disney itself, with the next movie being Meet the Robinsons. In 2006 however, a Pixar animated movie started to become annual, as their used to be a 1-3 year waiting period in random sequences. Also, Pixar’s movies were considering critical and commercial acclaim, while Disney’s still had positive reviews; they were not as well received commercially or critically as Pixar’s.

2001: Atlantis: A Lost Empire - 46% Rotten (Rotten Tomatoes) - $186,053,725 (Gross Revenue), Monsters Inc – 95% Fresh (Rotten Tomatoes) - $525,366,597 (Gross Revenue)

2003: Brother Bear – 38% Rotten (Rotten Tomatoes) - $250,397,798 (Gross Revenue), Finding Nemo – 98% Fresh (Rotten Tomatoes) - $867,893,978 (Gross Revenue)

2004: Home on the Range – 55% Rotten (Rotten Tomatoes) - $103,951,461 (Gross Revenue) (Note that this movies budget was 110,000,000), The Incredibles – 97% Fresh (Rotten Tomatoes) - $631,442,092 (Gross Revenue)

2005: Chicken Little (Note that this is Disney’s first CGI animated film made directly) 36% Rotten (Rotten Tomatoes) - $314,432,837 (Gross Revenue), Cars – 74% Fresh (Rotten Tomatoes) - $461,983,149 (Gross Revenue)

            For each year Disney and Pixar had releases in the same year consistently, Pixar earned more gross revenue and better reviews than all of Disney’s self-produced films. To say that the symbiotic relationship was needed is an understament. If it had not been for Pixar, Disney actually would have lost money had they relied solely on the movies they made, at least $6,048,539 or more, because these results are only for their animated films. As Pixar was also the dominate force behind Disney’s earnings, and had full creative control over what they made, this also brought a contrast to Disney’s quality in films as far as characters, morals, and values.

            Disney has had a long string of financial and legal issues due to their movies, and has spewed a lot of debate about what values they embed in their movies (as evidenced in this blog.) If Pixar had not intervened, who knows how much more trouble Disney would be in because of their supposed ideals. A lot of this has to do with what Pixar focuses on in their movies. With their first movie Toy Story, the perspective was through living toys, which all had distinguished personalities. There were no talks about hidden messages, and minority misrepresentation because none of the characters were stereotypically portrayed. A recent example of this was in Pixar’s Up. One of the lead characters named Russell, an Asian American boy scout, received acclaim from the Asian American community, as he was portrayed as a regular American kid, and was actually portrayed by an Asian American voice actor. This is a sharp contrast to some of Disney’s films such as Lady in the Tramp, were stereotypical portrayal toke the form of the twin Siamese Cats, who were depicted with slanted eyes, buck teeth, heavy Asian accents, and deceitful and conniving personalities. Another example was Mulan, were some of the portrayals of the Chinese were a little off, as in using Korean flags instead of Chinese flags. A lot of Pixar’s movies had a lot of underlying tones of Good Vs. Evil, family, and strong character development, which are all very strong morals, valued by both parent and child. Although Disney has these portrayals as well, they often can be weighed down due to some their controversy.

            The very fact that Pixar has become somewhat of an unofficial Disney is a strong sentiment for the quality of films they produce. I find myself so enamored by the stories Pixar are able to portray, to the point that I am moved emotionally and become invested in their characters. Another strong suit for them is that they have not released a critical or commercial flop yet, which you would thing for any company is bound to happen. It is also of great benefit to business for Disney. If Pixar is the driving force for what Disney is today, a lot of the aforementioned values will stay intact, but at the same time, they represent something so much stronger. Pixar has time and time again faithfully represented and produce quality storytelling, without the use of racial stereotypes, gender roles or subliminal messages. Now that Disney in Pixar is in fact the same company, we can kind of say this is the same for Disney as well, as Pixar’s influence has drastically changed the way they present their demographics. To end this on a high note, Pixar are making sequels to Cars and Monsters Inc, and I will pay top dollar to see these films, because Pixar has proven to be a great and fundamental part of Disney.

Cradle to Grave

By: P.Z.

In the past Disney has marketed towards the girls with their “Princess Marketing.”  Where through their movies, books, clothing, games, and a variety of other merchandise have created this magical world where girls can go to be princesses.  Now Disney is realizing they have been missing out on cashing in with the young boys.  This year Disney is going to release Cars 2 and have plans, like always, to drive those sales. Disney realized after the release of Cars when the purchasing of that movie’s merchandise didn’t drop off like they expected.

             Aside from shifting their marketing towards boys they are also changing up how they sell their merchandise within their stores.  They are going to group all of one movie’s products into one area.  This way you don’t have to travel around the store to pick up your Cars t-shirt and book, it’ll all be in one spot.  This is kind of counter intuitive to what I’ve been thought about marketing.  You want to have your customer walk around the whole store so they can find that one thing they didn’t know they “needed.”  If all the products are grouped together there is no needing to search the whole store to find that one themed item which will probably make the consumer happier. 

            Repetition has helped drive sales for Disney.  “DCP research had found that Disney DVDs, which young children commonly watch about 40 times” are influencing the child’s mind and their purchasing power.  Disney has the numbers to prove it as well, as of 2009 Walt Disney Company’s revenue was $36.1 billion.  This is due to Disney’s ability to study their target audience, kids, and directly market towards them.  According to Media Awareness Network, companies have hired psychologist to help them understand the mind of a child in order to market to them more effectively. 

 Once the kids are hooked the parents are prone to apply to the kids wants so they don’t have to hear them “nag” about it.  Not being a parent I would think that you could tell your kid no to all the toys but it wasn’t until I was looking for a board game in Target where I witnessed the nag factor.  A mom and her little boy were walking down the aisle towards the board games when the kid saw a Transformer toy and “had to have it.”  The mom initially said no on the bases that he hadn’t done anything to earn the toy.  This made him upset and he started to persist about wanting the toy and eventually the mom gave in and got the toy for him.  This is what Disney is relying on when selling their products.

Disney wants to help you create a magical whenever you are using their product or watching their movies.  Even though Disney has been criticized by some for their marketing towards kids this is not stopping them from kicking off their new line of “Disney Cuddly Bodysuit.”  These bodysuits are being given to new mothers as a part of a gift package you receive from the hospital.  How can Disney get into the hospital?  The company Our365, a photography business that pays hospitals for this excess and other company’s piggy back off of them to get their product in the door and in the hands of new mothers.  Disney rolled out this new line starting last month in hospitals and will be available for purchase starting the 15^th of this month.  This new marketing plan gives a new meaning to “cradle to grave” and Disney is betting on the “magical” feeling they give you to pass on to you’re kids.

Sources:
"Disney Looks to Cradle to Expand." The New York Times. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/business/media/07disney.html>.

"How Marketers Target Kids." Media Awareness Network | Réseau éducation Médias. Web. <http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/marketing/marketers_target_kids.cfm>.

MacDonald, G. Jeffrey. "A Simple Formula." Retail Merchandiser 50.3 (2010): 36-38. Business Source Premier. EBSCO. Web. 8 Mar. 2011.

"Ownership Charts the Big Hits." Free Press: Reform Media. Transform Democracy. Web. <http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main>.

Have No Fear I Am Here!

By: P.Z.

 

You can see the lead male in Disney movies as tall, muscular and they typically have an angular face.  Along with the hyper masculine appearance the male characters also act in the same way.  This image of men is consistent through Disney films and shows young boys what “real” men should look like and act like.  At a young age, boys don’t have the cognitive ability to critically analyze these images of men in the Disney movies.  Instead of deconstructing what they see they rely on “mirror neurons” to act out what they observe in movies.  “Mirror Neurons” found in the brain and used for visual and motor sensory input.  You can see how “mirror neurons” play a part in the bobo doll experiment conducted by Albert Bandura.

 

            An article in the Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, “Images of Gender, Race, Age, and Sexual Orientation in Disney FeatureLength AnimatedFilm,” they talk about five themes observed in Disney movies; Men expressing their emotions physically or not at all; Men have no control over their sexuality; Men are naturally strong and heroic; Men have jobs outside of the home; Overweight men have negative characteristics.  These themes are what most young boys view as how they should be and show young girls what to expect from boys.

            Men expressing their emotions physically or not at all can be seen in The Little Mermaid, when King Triton and Arial get into a verbal fight over her being attracted to the prince.  The fight finished with King Triton getting so upset that he destroyed some of her belongings and finally the statue of the prince.  He left without saying sorry for over reacting and just left Arial there to cry over her lose.  This message is telling young boys that when a girl isn’t doing something you agree with your response should be to yell and be physically violent.  Without showing healthy ways of communication this is an observed reaction young boys have to call on when presented with the same situation in the future.

            A man having no control over their sexuality is displayed in Sleeping Beauty when the prince sees the princess and doesn’t want her to leave.  Rose, the princess, has to go back to her house after they sing a song together but the prince is persistent and wants to know when he can see her again.  This is showing young boys that you can “fall in love” just after meeting a woman and not know much about her other than how she looks.  If a woman is physically appealing that you need to pursue her at any cost.

            Men are naturally strong and heroic is shown in Toy Story 3.  In the introduction there is a battle between Woody and Mr. Potato Head where Wood is trying catch Mr. Potato from stealing the money.  There was struggle between the two and Mrs. Potato Head tried to help Mr. Potato Head then Josie tried to help Woody.  In the end the strong Buzz Lightyear was the hero by catching the train that flew off the tracks and bringing it to safety.  In this scene it’s showing boys that you have to be physically strong in order to save the day.

            Men have jobs outside of the home and leave the women to do domestic jobs.  “In 17 of the movies, men were portrayed as having non-domestic jobs. In only three movies (Pinocchio, Jungle, and Tarzan) were men shown performing domestic tasks.”  If boys only see other boys or men doing jobs outside of the home their schema of what a man should do will be warped into thinking they can’t do anything in the home.  If men are under the impression that they aren’t capable to do anything within the home this will reinforce the oppressive notion that a woman’s place is within the home.

            Overweight men in Disney movies have negative characteristics.  In the movie The Hunchback of Notre Dame Quasimoto who is a faithful and hard working man that has a hump in his back, short in stature and one of his eyes is slightly droopy.  Throughout the movie Quasimoto fights for and helps save Esmeralda but in the end Quasimoto only earns the love and affection of his community.  Esmeralda ends up with the tall, muscular solider, Phoebus and Quasimoto even gives them his blessing by placing their hands together.  This is a horrible message to be sending young boys who are overweight or short in stature.  Disney is telling these types of me that you’re not good enough to be with a woman you are attracted to. 

 

            These five different themes, aimed at boys, are not only helping to continue the oppression of women but are also oppressing men.  By not having any male role models on how to effectively and healthily display emotion Disney is contributing to the communication breakdown of men in our society.  To only show men in an image driven, no self control way towards women is perpetuating the objectification of women.  If in order to be a man you have to be physically strong and constantly “save the day” that is not only putting high expectations on men but showing them false ones.  To only show men doing jobs outside of the home is not allowing them to fully participate in the operation of his home and implies that women can’t do jobs outside of the home.  To constantly show overweight men as not being good enough tells boys that if you’re chubby you won’t be desirable towards women.  These themes effect kid’s thought process and helps shape them but are these messages we want to be sending our young people?

Robinson, Maria. Child Development 0-8: a Journey through the Early Years. Maidenhead: Open UP, McGraw Hill, 2008. Print.
The Little Mermaid. 1989.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame. 1996.
Toy Story 3. 2010

Mia Adessa , Haddock, Shelley A. , Zimmerman, Toni Schindler , Lund, Lori K. and Tanner, Litsa Renee(2004) 'Images of Gender, Race, Age, and Sexual Orientation in Disney Feature-Length AnimatedFilms', Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 15: 4, 19 — 44

P.Z.

Gender Roles- Then and Now

By: T.Y.

            As mentioned in the blog titled "Then and Now, an Introduction", Disney heavily influences and shapes the perception of society for children. This includes Gender Roles. Children begin to define gender, as well as what girls and boys are “supposed to be like” at a very early age. Critics have complained that Disney’s portrayal of genders, especially females, are sexist and have a negative effect on children. Over the years, Disney has attempted to make some improvements.

According to Cornell University Research Psychologist, Sandra Bern, children begin distinguishing between male and female as a means to start organizing information about the world.   Children then begin to define what it means to be a male or a female through behavior as they begin to incorporate these definitions into their own developing personalities. By age two, children can distinguish between a male and a female, and by age four/five, children insist that other’s and themselves act according to behavior deemed appropriate for their gender. (Mann 45-46)  So children define the concept of males and females based on what they see in the world, including the Disney films they watch.

Looking at Disney films from the 1990’s, it is frightening to think that girls would begin to incorporate Disney’s portrayal of females into their behavior. Females are highly sexualized, not just physically, but in the behavior they exhibit as Dr. Gail Dines explained in an interview for the film “Mickey Mouse Monopoly”:

“What’s amazing when you look at Disney and Disney movies over the years is that how little the image of females has really changed. You still have the same highly sexualized bodies with the big breasts, the tiny waists, the fluttering eyelashes, the quoi expressions- the seductress.  Even when they’re in animal form, you’ve got this very seductive little female”.

Children’s stereotype and perception of gender was further reinforced by the accompanying toys they bought. (Mann 53) Not only did girls see that princess Jasmine had large breasts and a tiny waist, they were constantly bombarded with this image as they played with her dolls. 

It is also impossible to ignore the roles of the females in the films from the 90’s. Girls were never the hero. Almost every animated Disney film, from “Snow white” to “A Bug’s Life” had males as the strong heroes. Females were depicted as weak, helpless, and in need of rescue. According to the book, The Mouse that Roared, sexist female stereotypes were also extended to daily roles including defined housework for females, subservient attitudes. Even in the film “Mulan”, the female heroine may have defeated the villain, but she still returned to daily life as a subservient woman to other males. Understanding the powerful, detrimental effects, these films had on shaping gender roles, Disney absolutely needed to do better.

After a certain period of time Disney began a painfully slow improvement in their portrayal of females in films. But the improvements were hit or miss in the early 2000’s. In 1999, Disney came out with “Toy Story 2” (disneymovielist.com) which featured a spunky new character, Jessie. Jessie was distinguishably female without the highly sexualized body or seductive personality. However, in the end Jessie was still the damsel in distress who needed the rescuing; Woody and Buzz Lightyear came to rescue her from imprisonment in a box.

“Lilo and Stitch” came out in 2002, featuring non-sexualized female main characters. The story was unique from the typical Disney movie formula, in that there was no damsel in distress. The film also featured minorities (pacific islanders). Even with the drastic change from traditional Disney films (and following more closely to the “ET” storyline) “Lilo and Stitch” managed to bring in over 145million dollars at the box-office. (boxofficemojo.com)

In 2003, the animated film “Finding Nemo” was released, featuring fish as main characters. Most of the featured characters were males. Females were barely featured in the film. The starring female character was Dora the forgetful fish, who was not a hero, but a plucky cheerful sidekick. The best aspect of this film was the character designs. Females were not highly sexualized, and were visually portrayed as equals to males.  

In the late 2000’s, Disney continued to release movies such as “Bolt” in 2008. In the past, animal featured Disney movies, such as “Oliver and Company”, “Bambi” or even “Lion King”, featured highly sexual female characters who were interested in seducing the male characters. The cat, Mittens in bolt was not sexual at all. In fact throughout the movie, there was no attempt of seducing “Bolt” or any other character by females. Even this lack of sexual seduction is a drastic change from the older Disney films. Mittens, like Dora in “Finding Nemo”, were part of the adventures. She was just as important to the adventure as Bolt.

The film “Wall-E” which came out in 2008 completely lacked the sexual appeal of female characters. “Wall-E” featured a feisty, independent female robot, Eva. Eva was also a key part of the adventures.  In 2010 “The Princess and the Frog” was released, featuring a black female heroine who even saved the prince!

In recent Disney films, feminist ideals have finally come through. It is more than likely that some viewers may disagree with this concept. But the drastic reduction of sexualized females from children’s animated Disney films is ! Gender roles are also less polarized with a sense of equality with strength and duties equally carried out by both genders. Both males and females are part of the adventure and missions in the story lines, rather than the male character out on the adventure as the female waits for help. Disney has made huge strides in 
equality for genders and more fair gender roles!

Sources:

Giroux H., Polloc, G. The Mouse That Roared. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. New York. 2010.

Mann, Judy. The Difference: Growing up Female in America. Warner Books. New York. 1994.

Mickey Mouse Monopoly. Dir. Miguel Picker. 2001. USA. Film.

"Walt Disney Movies : Disney Movies List : List of Disney Movies." Disney Movies : Walt Disney Movies : Disney Movie List. Web. 30 Jan. 2011. <http://www.disneymovieslist.com/disney-movies.asp>.

"2010 Yearly Box Office Results." Box Office Mojo. Web. 27 Jan. 2011. <http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2010&p=.htm>.