Rozario Review Part 2

"The Team Disney Princess: Just a Little Bit Bad"

I didn't find this pice nearly as interesting as other scholarly articles I've read around the topic. The arguments didn't interest me as much and it seemed quite dry.

Rozario focuses on Princesses by birth-right, not marital status, in her examples. Thus using Ariel, Jasmine, and Pocahontas (daughter of Chieftain) to back up her arguments.

I agree with Rozario's point that, the dancing represented in Walt Disney's films encompasses little girls who want to grow up to be princesses and ballerinas. When you take into account that the original animated Princesses were based on ballerina dancers' figures, this is not a surprising trait. This leads to very good marketing on the Disney corporations part, allowing them to expand their target audience and attract girls with the offer of being a ballerina and a princess.

Rozario goes on to comment on how Disney transitions from ballerina movements in the first wave, to more sportswoman like elegance in the 2nd wave. These are bodies better suited to the new agencies these protagonists possess - for example, Ariel swimming, rescuing Eric, and exploring in human form. Jasmine pole-vaulting buildings in a single bound. Or Pocahontas diving off waterfalls,  and running through the forest. I love Rozario's conclusion that this is evidence that "heroism, egalitarianism and autonomy are slipped into the convention of Disney princesshood" (47). I fully agree that these 2nd wave princesses are progressive princesses - despite other flaws and criticisms - and that they serve as a positive model. They are not perfect, but they are a vast improvement from the first wave, and for the 80's and 90's I feel they give strong messages. Pocahontas, for example, is a physically active adventurer, a strong-willed, level-headed woman, and a brave peacekeeper. She explores her surroundings, leaves the camp when she wants to, prevents a war with her courageous actions, and decides to stay with her people rather than leave with John Smith. Thus showing that women can be heroes in control of their own lives.

Rozario brings Joseph Swain into the argument, by quoting him to explain that musicals don't traditionally center around the action of falling in love; the love between the two main characters is usually apparent and assumed. Rather, the focus is on how the protagonists overcome obstacles to achieve their happily ever after together. This allows for comedic effect, and, Rozario explains, "indicates the dominance of the femme fatale" (47)

On page 47, Rozario briefly introduces the notion that the princess and her lover come from different societies. But I am disappointed that she leaves the point hanging here and doesn't really analyze it. I wish she'd expanded and had more to say, as I think this could be an interesting exploration.
(In the next section, Rozario does bring this point in again, using it to show that in the 2nd wave "Team Disney" princesses break down rigid norms by courting a man outside their expected suitors)

I, personally, found it very strange for Rozario to liken The Little Mermaid to such films as Dirty Dancing. Particularly in such statements as: "Baby and Ariel also rise from the water, signifying Venus, just when they are gaining control of their own bodies and sexuality" (50). I feel this has little relevance to the thesis and body of her paper. I feel the road-map in Rozario's introduction doesn't preclude this tangent which two pages are dedicated to (49-50).
She quotes Chris Richards (1995) "be it in The Little Mermaid or, more substantially, in Dirty Dancing, for girls there is a visible proof of bodily autonomy and self-control implicit in being seen to dance, to present a body enacting tension" (147). Here, I find the wording of Richards "be it..., or...." to show that the two films are not as similar as Rozario tries to make them seem. Richards is using two contrasting films to demonstrate his following point. And I feel Rozario is jumping on connections between them that I feel irrelevant. What does it matter that Baby and Ariel both seek a man their father disapproves of? These are very different films.

"The Disney Princess: Sexuality and Rule"

I admire the structure of Rozario's paper. She uses multiple other scholars to back up her points, quoting a specifically poignant phrase from each, that directly backs up her argument. She doesn't get bogged down in the other author's argument or explanation, Rozario merely uses short and direct quotes to back up her points. This is important so that Rozario successfully gets across what she wants to say, while avoiding simply summarizing another writer. This technique is particularly crucial when Rozario includes multiple opinions in just one paragraph; as she does at the bottom of page 51 in explaining the link of sexuality to Princess by adding well known voices like Trites, Leadbeater and Wilson, Griffin, and Sardar. 

These quotations are, in my opinion, well done; Rozario smoothly includes other voices into the conversation throughout her piece, giving her own arguments greater credibility. 

The portrayal of the princess between sexuality and "daddy's little girl" is an interesting contrast Rozario explores in this section.

As no princess has a brother, rule cannot pass to him, thus leaving the princess responsible for continuation of the dynasty.

No father ever wishes for a son. Even for Mulan, the technically 'not a princess princess', her father says the "greatest gift of all, is having you for a daughter".

I love Rozario's whole argument on page 53 (paragraph 2). It basically sums up to the point that

The Kingdown relies on princess; as her love life issue is resolved, the security of the kingdom is secured. With no brother, and a King who cannot fulfill this role as he is widowed and past prime, the princess holds the power and the future in her hands. The King, the princess's father, wants her to marry a study, reliable suitor whom he approves of; someone Rozario argues is much like the King himself. The second wave Princesses, however, want to break free from this limiting mould and court someone outside this realm, leading them to a more adventurous life. Rozario sums this up beautifully as she writes that the "father represents traditional, somewhat autocratic, law and order, and the princess's function is to represent autonomy and openness." 53

First the conflicts between father and daughter must be resolved, before a happy ever after for the princess and the kingdom can be formed. The father must be able to accept that the daughter has grown up, and accept her new lover. 

The Princess chooses an outsider over the steady man the father experts her to marry. The princesses want more adventure, ever pushing boundaries. In The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and Pocahontas, a human, street rat, and an Englishman are each very different to the fathers expectations of a merman, prince, and esteemed tribe warrior. 

"the dual focus of the courtship creates the possibility of an equal match between hero and princess" (55). Both hero and princess seek love - Eric needs a bride, Aladdin uses the Genie wishes so he can be suitable for Jasmine, and John Smith asks Pocahontas to return to England with him. 

On the whole, I agree with Rozario's arguments and find her research paper is well written. It flows easily and includes many other voices to give her arguments strength. 

As a Disney lover, I like her optimistic conclusions and the stance she takes, showing that these films are progressive and empowering to women. The princesses marry because they want to, and in doing so they even break down rigid norms, by marrying outside of what is expected. The princess' choice is honoured, and just because she marries, does not mean she loses any of her initial feistiness and just submits to patriarchal oppression. Quite to the contrary, it means she has succeeded; she has achieved what she wanted, and can live a happy life, with a father and Kingdom in good standing. 

The 'Dark Prince' and Dream Women: Walt Disney and Mid-Twentieth Century American Feminism

The 'Dark Prince' and Dream Women: Walt Disney and Mid-Twentieth Century American Feminism, Amy M. Davis

In this balanced and well-written scholarly article, Davis seeks to weigh in a considered argument on Walt Disney's view on women, to provide well-reasoned arguments and even out the wild, unproven accusations for Walt's dark side or good-nature. Davis examines Walt's life and work in terms of his relationship with and attitudes towards women to determine how Walt's personal views may differ from that of his studio as a whole and from the films it produces, while also putting into context the views of American society as a whole during this time period. All of this is done with the hope of finding a clearer understanding of the sexism found in Disney's films. In my personal opinion, this article achieves it's goal in clarifying that Walt Disney was neither the innocent 'Uncle Walt' nor the notorious 'Hollywood Dark Prince' he had been labelled as, yet he was a complex and intelligent man, who's greatest care was for his work. 

Dick Huemer, a long-time Disney studio employee, claimed that Walt's "first consideration was what a person could contribute to the studio or the product...I think he would have used the Devil himself if he was a great animator". Walt had to defend his advanced employment of women to the other workers, explaining that "girl artists have the right to expect the same chances for advancement as men, and I honestly believe that they may eventually contribute something to this business that men never would or could." Walt wanted what was best for Disney, and recognised that women played an important role in this. Many people attest that it was simply "talent that was important" to Walt, not gender, race or religion.  

The big question is, where do Walt's personal views differ from the views presented in the Disney films produced? Walt is often personally accused of sexist views, but there is little evidence against him as a person. While employees have nothing to say against Walt, they claim many of his executives held sexist views, and we can't ignore the more sexist views held generally acceptable at the time. So this is easily where the views in the films can come from. Walt acknowledged the differences in men and women, but did not use these to argue women were inferior. Quite the contrary, he believed that women were needed to balance out men. That their greater imaginations could do things for animation no male work force could. That their deep-emotional maturity allowed women to connect with their inner-child without acting child-like and therefore made them the target audience of Disney in Walt's eyes. Walt worked with women as artistic and intellectual equals, valuing only what they could contribute to his company and therefore being more than prepared to listen to women as he believed they had something worthwhile to contribute to a discussion. 

Despite Walt's progressive views of women in the work-force, he was guilty of generalising and stereotyping women in conjunction with gender norms of the time. For instance, that women were emotional, domestic, maternal, beauty and romance oriented, softer, quieter and more delicate. All of which was evident in his films. Take dear Snow White, for instance, is the perfect model of a domestic goddess. She ticks every one of these stereotypes. She is emotional, crying in the forest and immediately apologising to the animals for being so emotional. She cooks and cleans the cottage, mothering the Dwarves. She is beautiful and romantic, pining for her Prince. She is soft, quiet and delicate, with a sweet voice and gentle nature. Disney's first Princess is the epitome of the female gender. 

Davis puts forward the interesting view that by the time Cinderella was released, really only the second female protagonist Disney film, the 'typical' Disney heroin had already been branded. This shows the early judgement of the Disney franchise and perhaps only shows that these characters did quite accurately reflect the 'typical American girl' at the time, contextualising these old films. 

In this article, Davis is mainly conversing with Disney's critics, such as Marc Eliot and Lynda Haas, (though occasionally his fanatics too). She seeks to provide evidential proof that their claims against him are unjustified and false, based on little or no evidence that lacks scholarly credibility. Some claims that Disney was sexist may simply come from his awkwardness around women. Though, in truth, Disney had little experience with women, other than family members, and that which he did have left him fearful and broken hearted. From the terrors of venereal disease in France, to his high-school sweetheart marrying another man while he was away with the Red Cross. This lead to the generalisation of his attitude towards women as respectful, "but mixed with a touch of suspicion". Yet Walt also associated his female family members with security. Walt's contradictory views of women as love and goodness as well as danger and duplicity can be seen in Disney's films, but does also reflect the wider views of women at the time. 

Davis is far more supporting of Walt than the other voices in this conversation, and I view this piece as a defense of his character, seeking to out the truths and dispel the rumours. There is no doubt that Davis regards Walt highly as at the end of her introduction she describes him as not only as "intelligent, talented, complex" but also as the founder of "one of the most important studios in the history of the Hollywood film industry".