Hegemony in Disney Films
Currently, I am in the middle of a Disney Princess Movie Marathon with my friends, and as I was reading through this module’s materials, my mind kept going back to some of the plots of the older Disney movies I have been watching. As Disney's audience is mainly children, it is interesting to see the ideology and underlying messages that may be perceived to young children as they are developing their own opinions and thoughts. Regarding hegemony, there are quite a few examples from the Disney Princess movies, mainly from the older versions.
Sellnow simply explains hegemony as “the prioritizing of a dominant group's ideology over that of other groups.” Where the dominant groups may be defined in terms of socioeconomic status, gender, race, and ability.
The first example of hegemony being present in Disney films is how they may be trying to allude the audience to believe that men are more empowered than women in some aspects. This is due to the princes being described as charming and masculine which helps describe the gender expectations, where the men act as protectors, needing to save the princesses. Whereas the princesses are shown to be needing to be saved and portray characteristic traits of kind, innocent, and gentle. For example, in Sleeping Beauty, Aurora was awakened by Prince Phillip’s kiss after she fell under a sleeping curse. Another example is Snow White, as Snow White also needs to be saved by Prince Charming after biting the poisoned apple. These movies could potentially give viewers, especially young girls, the impression that girls will only get their happy ending if a boy saves them. This can be detrimental as it may feel disempowering for girls as they are watching men be more empowered than women in the princess movies.
The second example of hegemony being present in Disney films is how they illustrate that caucasians are more empowered than other races. In the older Disney movies, most of the love interests for the princesses are caucasian and are princes. For example, Eric in The Little Mermaid was a prince, and so was Prince Charming in Cinderella. However, in Aladdin, Aladdin was a thief and street rat. This shows hegemony as Disney is inferring that caucasians are more empowered than other races as they are all shown as Princes in the early Disney Princess films except for Aladdin. Some viewers might have felt oppressed by this as they aren’t the cultural group that is being taken for granted as normal, desirable, and empowered.
Given that now most of Disney’s films do not include hegemony and are attempting to be more inclusive, fighting stereotypes, and empowering equality, could that be why they are filming live-action adaptations of the older animated films? Could it possibly just be a cash grab or does Disney see their mistakes in the underlying messages of ideology and hegemony that might be perceived?
I am curious about your statement "most of Disney’s films do not include hegemony and are attempting to be more inclusive, fighting stereotypes, and empowering equality..." Are they? According to Psychology Disney movies promote gender, racial/cultural, and socioeconomic class stereotypes. Most Disney movies also involve frequent negative references to mental illness (such as calling characters “crazy” or “nuts”). Disney movies also tend to demonize anyone who engages in “bad” behavior, with 74 percent of Disney movies referring to someone as “evil” with an average of 5.6 “evil” references per film. This is concerning because we would not want our children to label someone who makes a mistake as “evil” or “bad” (or perhaps even worse, to label themselves as “evil” or “bad”)
ReplyDeleteResearch also shows that The Little Mermaid is especially hegemonic. That is why Ariel takes Ursula's deal, changes her body, and sacrifices her voice while leaving her family behind. This validates the hegemonic code of femininity because women are seen as individuals who cannot take care of themselves and are only complete with a man.
References
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/parenting-translator/202302/are-disney-princess-movies-bad-for-kids#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20research%20finds%20that%20many,%E2%80%9D%20or%20%E2%80%9Cnuts%E2%80%9D).
When it comes to Marxist ideas on Capatlism and hegeamony Disney is a prime example of just that. Almost all of Disneys works can be seen as prefered readings based on when they were released. As you stated in you blog "Regarding hegemony, there are quite a few examples from the Disney Princess movies, mainly from the older versions". You continue to provide examples such as the ideolgy that "females are weak" and a Prince needs to come and save the day. In fact this Pixar clip "Disney Princess" from Wreck it Ralph has subverted opostions messages that are quite comedic.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as the feminist movement begans to grow more "Mainstream" as seen in articles such as ABC's "Modern Feminism". Disney continues to take advantage of their audience and create prefferred reading where female protagnist become independent forging their own destiny with or with out a male. Examples of charaters like this include Moana, Raya, Merida, Mulan and Princess Tiana. Not only do all these charaters go against of what Disney messges used to show in the past but they have also created a more diverse cast of charaters showing the "Site of Struggle." Although, I love that the younger generation can feel represented and I apprecited movies such as "CoCo". I can't help but to think Disney is only producing this great diverse content to make money.
I think Disney is great at balancing out trends and understanding how to manipulate hegeamony ideolgies. However, Disney has failed in the past at making content that was loved by the majoirty of people. For example "Eternals" had several bad reviews for representing LGTBQ+ at a time where these ideolgies were trending but the majority of people still did no support it being in childrens media.
Lastly, to answer your question regaridng if Disney is trying to recreate there movies to live action to get rid of these poor ideolgies I do not think that is the case. I beleive Disney remakes are only a cash grab and are becoming more inclusive becuase as the older generation passes away the majority of society is becoming more accepting. With that being said a follwing question for me would be. Do you think Disney will ever be able to create orginal artstic ideas or will they continue to try to recreate the past eventually being left behind?
Movie Clips/ Trailers:
"Disney Princess"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICUMGYHYBKY
"Enternals"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8sbyYDvNQU
"Moana"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKFuXETZUsI
"CoCo"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvr68u6k5sI
"Reya"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VIZ89FEjYI
"Mierda"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEHWDA_6e3M
"Mulan"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGfJeW_CcFY
"Princess Tiana"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySmprrDXutw
Other Referenced Links:
"Modern Feminist" https://abcnews.go.com/US/examining-modern-feminism-wave-now/story?id=97617121
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDisney’s current situation was brilliantly critiqued in South Park’s recent special "Joining the Panderverse". While many perceive it as a straightforward critique of Disney, it actually reflects a broader societal trend towards pandering to diversity. The common belief is that Disney's efforts are focused on diversifying their princesses, but the critique goes beyond this. Pandering, defined as fulfilling the wants of a person or group unacceptably or unreasonably to gain personal advantage, is a practice not limited to Disney; numerous content creators are also guilty of attempting to pander to specific groups. An example is J.K. Rowling, who faced criticism for announcing Dumbledore’s sexuality without providing evidence in the story to support it.
ReplyDeleteSouth Park’s "Pandaverse" extends its critique beyond Disney itself. It takes aim at individuals who express anger towards Disney’s actions, suggesting that their demands for content tailored to their political beliefs contribute to the perpetuation of pandering. Both sides of this issue can be perceived as lazy—the motive behind Disney’s inclusivity efforts being profit-driven rather than aimed at making a genuine difference, and those who constantly complain about diversity being portrayed as lazy in their approach.
These perspectives, rooted in profit motives and political demands, can lead to unfavorable outcomes. Unfortunately, neither side seems to recognize the necessity of changing their behavior.
Forbes “Joining the Pandaverse” Review:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2023/10/27/south-park-joining-the-panderverse-review---disney-satire-at-its-finest/
JK Rowling annouces Dumbledore is Gay:
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=3755544&page=1