Previously, I briefly mentioned criticism regarding subliminal messaging in Disney films. In an article written by Ronald E. Ostman titled, “Disney and its Conservative Critics: Images Versus Realities”, he takes a closer look at examples of such criticism. Here are some examples,
Critics claim the following:
* In the laser-disc version of the Disney co-produced Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), there is a frame or two of a pantyless Jessica Rabbit, not to mention glimpses of her bare breasts. One must advance the laser disc frame by frame to see the sights, according to those in the know. Also, some graffiti suggests a good time can be had with “Allyson Wonderland,” complete with Disney chairman Michael Eisner’s home telephone number (Does Jessica 1).
* In The Little Mermaid (1989), during a wedding ceremony, the officiator has an erection (Does the Minister 1). On the film’s video box, the portrayed castle has a tower that looks like a penis (Did a Disney 1; Little Mermaid 2; Viets 3).
* In Aladdin (1992), Aladdin flies to Princess Jasmine’s balcony on his magic carpet and attempts to win her back after a fight. Her tiger Rajah threatens him, and Aladdin tries to shoo Rajah while the Genie cracks jokes. Then, Aladdin whispers to Jasmine, “Take off your clothes.” Her eyes widen (Bannon 1; Does Aladdin 1).
* In The Lion King (1994), when Simba flops to the dusty ground during a poignant, contemplative moment, dust swirls skyward and spells out “sex.” The scene occurs when Simba is self-exiled from his kingdom and is recalling an old incident that took place when he was a young cub: his father Mufasa telling a tale about the stars being former kings (Blomquist 3; Goodykoontz 1; Is the Word 1; Nichols 20; Smith 6). (Ostman 82)
Ostman makes it a point in saying that Walt Disney himself was a stern and mature man who did not tolerate any type of character other than a straight man. Ostman also points out that he was a strict boss which may have prompted his employees to act against him and include such subliminal messages. What’s most interesting is that the first subliminal message in the Lion King was pointed out by a young child, and it was so apparent to him that when the adults went back to look for his claim, they had a tough time finding it unless they forwarded frame by frame. It is as if these messages are only targeted towards children and it’s clearly spotted by them and absorbed into their young minds, that it ruins their innocence and the cycle continues as these films are passed down. My question is, if this is the power of subliminal messaging, what do the spells signify? Is it telling children that if they want something, they can use unfair and evil means to attain it? I would not be surprised.
I would like to dedicate the next few posts to Disney as a company and what their significance is to the various fairy tales which they have control over. Susan Brockus’s article, “Where Magic Lives: Disney’s Cultivation, Co-Creation, and Control of America’s Cultural Object”, is a fascinating article that picks apart at Disney’s dominance over popular childhood figures and how they are promoted to the public. The following quote is by far the most intriguing of the article,
A major part of fairy tales that has always disturbed me is the spell casting part. I suppose I have never quite understood as to why witches and other evil characters resort to magic through using random animal limbs to achieve something they can’t on their own. Is it really necessary for Ursula to take over the throne? What satisfaction can she possibly achieve from that? And what will the witch in Snow White achieve by posing as an old woman, something she’s trying to run away from by murdering snow white, using a spell? I suppose that these spells and potions offer a fast track route to the final destination and create a sense of unfairness. The strangest things I have never seem to understand are love potions. Why force a person to fall in love with you when it is obvious their feelings are unreal. It is as if a person is lying to them self and perfectly okay with it. What’s up with that.
Straying from the ingredients that make up a potion to a more broader sense in what the potion stands for, there is an interesting ordeal to the witches in these tales. Taking a closer look at The Little Mermaid, A. Waller Hastings article, “Moral Simplification in Disney’s The Little Mermaid”, points out a fascinating trail of thought.
In almost every fairy tale or story with a witch and potion, there are ingredients that are read aloud as they are being thrown into a cauldron. These ingredients are always parts of animals, never the whole. Why is that? If the one limb that is being used is considered magical, why is the entire body not considered useful? An interesting point that Marvalee H. Wake makes in his article, “Eye of Newt and Toe of Frog”, is that the entire body is not to be interesting enough to be inspected or used in fairy tales to witches, it is only interesting to biologists (Herpetologica 3). I suppose that witches are only interested in a specific part of biology.
Research Blog Project 