Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Disney Princesses are Sending the Wrong Message


The animated Disney princess is viewed as an idol to young girls worldwide.  However, these classic films we grew up with aren’t necessarily sending an appropriate message to children.  In these films, the female character is typically dependent, helpless, and her abilities are overlooked in comparison to her appearance.  Princesses like Cinderella, Snow White, Aurora, Belle, and Ariel, to name a few, are beautiful, graceful, obedient, available, and voluptuous; making them valuable to their prince.  The prince is the only hero who accomplishes a virtually impossible task to save the damsel in distress.  But then what?  The princess falls immediately in love with the strong, independent man and they all live happily ever after.  This “happy ending” gives children a false view on life.  Today, women can be successful without a prince charming, they don’t have to wear form fitting dresses that show off cleavage and other assets to attract a man, and they are valuable beyond looks alone.  These animated Disney films have the ability to influence young girls in their childhood into believing that beauty is everything and the only way to find true love.   
 


The 1937 film entitled Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs focuses on the heroine, Snow White, who is pretty, virginal, easily influenced, weak, and motherly.  In the opening scene, the evil queen looks into the magic mirror and asks, “Mirror, mirror on the wall who’s the fairest of them all?”  This famous line proves beauty is the ultimate goal for female characters; which reinforces the claim that women in Disney animated films are only valuable to others if they have beauty and sex appeal.  Furthermore, when Snow White runs away to the little, dirty house and befriends the dwarfs, she takes care of them because of her motherly, feminine instinct.  I found it interesting and almost ironic that Snow White instantly considered the dwarfs as friends because they weren’t tall, strong, and handsome.  Toward the end of the movie, the obedient Snow White eats the apple the evil queen gives her and is put into a deep sleep.  She can only be saved if her prince breaks the spell by kissing her.  Women in these films always seem to be dependent on their handsome princes.  They never have the option of saving themselves or even outsmarting the antagonist in the first place because they don’t have that capability.  Only handsome princes do.


In the 1991 film Beauty and the Beast, Belle, the Disney princess, is slightly more independent than the other princesses.  She enjoys reading; she longs for change and adventure; and she chooses not to marry the hunky Gaston.  It seems as though she could be a role model to young girls, however, when she searches for her father and winds up in a run-down mansion, she becomes trapped by the beast.  The beast terrifies the household and his prisoner, Belle.  He doesn’t officially attack her, but the threat of physical abuse is present.  Belle ends up changing the beast into a gentle, polite, and kind-hearted man because of her sweet-nature and beauty.  She didn’t fall in love with him based on physical attraction, but in the end the beast magically changes into a handsome man giving her the best of both worlds.  This movie sends a dangerous message to young girls.  The story line in this film essentially glorifies an abusive relationship.  She dances with the beast in a glamorous, gold gown; the enchanted household items insist that she can change him; and they live in a mansion and are both physically attracted to each other after the spell is broken.  Belle’s unconditional kind, feminine behavior and the glitzy surroundings enable her to dismiss the rage the beast has toward other people.  Women should be able to leave and not feel trapped if they’re being mentally abused by their significant other.


In Disney’s 1989 film The Little Mermaid, Ariel longs to “live out of these waters…”  The only way she can change from being a mermaid to a human is by giving away her voice to the evil, unattractive Ursula.  She easily gave away her voice without much thought.  The choice that Ariel made makes her appear to be careless, unintelligent, and easily influenced by outside forces.  She gives up her family and friends under the sea for romance with her Prince Eric on land.  Women shouldn’t give up everything they value for a man, but Disney makes it seem acceptable to do so.  In addition, Ariel is viewed as beautiful and sexually attractive.  She wears two shells on her rather large breasts, has a small waistline, and has hips (even when she has a fin and scales covering them).  Ariel’s attire underwater might be too provocative for young girls to see and idolize.  The thin, hourglass figure is the body type that all Disney princesses have.  This enables children to believe that this shape is ideal for women.     


In conclusion, these Disney princesses shouldn’t necessarily be considered role models for young children.  Women in these films are wrapped up in beauty, fashion, and grace not their capabilities and goals besides being a married woman one day.  When little girls view these classic movies, they quite possibly could get the impression that everything comes easy to beautiful, thin women.  Peggy Orenstein, the author of Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Line of Today’s New Girlie-Girl Culture, states that "The hyper-feminine image of a princess in today's world affects our understanding of relationships and gender roles..."  Society needs to be more aware of the messages these animated Disney films are possibly sending to children.

Publication Data

ORENSTEIN, PEGGY. "What’s Wrong With Cinderella?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Dec. 2006. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/magazine/24princess.t.html?pagewanted=all.

Maio, Kathy. "Women, Race & Culture in Disney's Movies." Women, Race and Culture in Disney Movies. 19 June 1999. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. http://www.newint.org/easier-english/Disney/diswomen.html.

Images


Monday, February 6, 2012

Banning of Exploitative Films


There’s no question that the first amendment protects our right to freedom of speech in the United States.  Hollywood cinema has evolved over the last century making more mature material considered acceptable to society.  Dozens of films have been classified as being exploitative in nature, but is there a point where the movie’s content goes beyond what general audiences may view as entertaining?  According to Film Certification Boards in several different countries, banning these exploitative films is what’s best for their society and culture.


 The controversial movie, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, was released for viewing in North America on December 20, 2011.  India was scheduled to release the movie on February 10th of this year.  However, India's Central Board of Film Certification insisted that several scenes be edited before release.  In this film, there are two explicit love-making scenes between Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) and Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), an anal rape scene between Lisbeth and her state appointed guardian, several torture scenes containing disturbing images, and a lesbian scene between Lisbeth and another woman at a bar.  After Director David Fincher refused to edit the film, Sony Pictures stated, "…while we are committed to maintaining and protecting the vision of the director, we will, as always, respect the guidelines set by the Board." Fincher felt it would leave out too much of the storyline if those scenes were taken out.  I saw this movie two weeks ago and, in my opinion, some of the violence and R-rated adaptations by the director could’ve been left out to still capture Stieg Larsson's best-selling book that the film is based on.  Implications could’ve been used to keep the intensity alive in the film and protect the viewer.  Personally, I wouldn’t have gone to the movie if I had known what I was walking into.  The definition of “Rated R” in America seems to be stretching farther and farther in modern times.  There needs to be a common ground on what Rated R means to the director and audiences.

 The horror film sequel entitled, The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence), has been banned in Australia and the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) refused to legally supply it in any form in the UK.  This film encompasses a short, British man named Martin Lomax who obtains the Human Centipede (First Sequence) film and becomes obsessed with recreating a twelve person human centipede.  This “human centipede” is formed by twelve victims who are surgically stitched together, mouth to anus, by a staple gun and are thus forced to eat the feces of others before them in line.  The antagonist, Lomax, becomes increasingly sexually aroused by the pain he inflicts on his victims.  After becoming aroused by the sight of his victims defecating into each other’s' mouths, one scene involves him wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the end of the centipede. The BBFC said "[T]here is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalized, degraded and mutilated for the amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience."  According to the New York Times, Australia's Classification Review Board banned this movie on November 28, 2011 because it contains "gratuitous, exploitative, or offensive depictions of violence with a very high degree of impact and cruelty…”.  I viewed the Human Centipede (First Sequence) a little over a year ago and it has scarred me.  Granted, I saw it after I had upper and lower jaw surgery so it wasn’t the best idea, but again, I wasn’t aware of what I was about to witness on the screen.  I don’t think cinemagoers need to see this kind of foul, vile content.  I feel this kind of a revolting subject is destructive to audiences and I don’t blame these other countries for banning this kind of film.


In the United States, the “R” rating is increasingly being pushed to the limit.  We do have freedom of speech in America which makes it acceptable to produce disturbing films.  However, how far is too far?  If other countries are banning these films to protect their audiences, then why aren’t we doing so in the United States?  There are many unanswered questions about what is acceptable to be seen in the rated “R” category.  It’s inevitable that exploitative films will be shown, but at this point in 2012, I think movie goers deserve to know what they’re walking into.   We need to have consistent answers as to what rated R really means.

Pubilication Data:


Child, Ben. "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Cancelled in India | Film | Guardian.co.uk." Latest News, Sport and Comment from the Guardian | The Guardian. 30 Jan. 2012. Web. 06 Feb. 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jan/30/girl-dragon-tattoo-cancelled-india.


Cunningham, Todd. "India Bans 'Girl With the Dragon Tattoo'| Reuters." Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com. 29 Jan. 2012. Web. 07 Feb. 2012. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/29/idUS122486517520120129>.


Itzkoff, Dave. "'Human Centipede' Sequel Is Banned in Australia." New York Times [New York, New York] 1 Dec. 2011: 2+. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Feb. 2012. http://www.shoreline.edu:2219/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=104&sid=9238ba97-1c92-4a3c-98a4-8cb98ee2d1fe%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=67522586

Shoard, Catherine. "The Human Centipede Sequel Just Too Horrible to Show, Says BBFC | Film | Guardian.co.uk." Latest News, Sport and Comment from the Guardian | The Guardian. Web. 06 Feb. 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun/06/human-centipede-sequel-bbfc

"THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 [FULL SEQUENCE] Review | Rama's Screen." A Movie Blog - News, Reviews and Trailers | Rama's Screen. Web. 06 Feb. 2012. http://www.ramascreen.com/the-human-centipede-2-full-sequence-review.


"Google Images." Google. Web. 06 Feb. 2012. <http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1>.