When one thinks of Disney movies, "squeaky-clean" animated content with wide-eyed animals and musical numbers comes to mind. However, if you think about it, hardly any of them are completely light-hearted.
The "squeaky-clean" image especially does not fit Disney's Golden Age films. There's the donkey transformation in Pinocchio, the pink elephant hallucination in Dumbo, and, of course, Bambi's mother's death. These powerful scenes have all scared kids.
Disney was relatively "squeaky-clean" during its Silver Age, but some films still veered into serious territory. For instance, One Hundred and One Dalmatians, though produced at the beginning of Disney's animation decline, focused on animal skinning.
After two decades of tame animated films, Disney made more risky animated films than before. For instance, Beauty and the Beast explored the effects of patriarchal oppression on a young woman (it's darker than you remember). Hyenas then marched like Nazi soldiers in The Lion King. Two years later came Walt Disney Animation Studios's most risk-embracing feature yet; The Hunchback of Notre Dame addressed persecution (not something parents wanted kids to see).
Twenty years later, Disney has shifted from risk-embracing to risk-averse. This is especially true in some of their live-action remakes, in which they try not to scare kids as much as they did before. For instance, Gaston is less predatory towards Belle in Beauty and the Beast, the pink elephants become bubbles in Dumbo, the hyenas in The Lion King no longer march, and there is no smoking or drunkenness in Pinocchio.
In Cruella's origin story, the company did not want her skinning puppies (and it wasn't even for kids-rated PG-13). Even worse: Bob Iger cancelled the Hunchback of Notre Dame remake because of its themes.
Disney probably doesn't want to show kids abuse, hallucinations, nazism, drunkenness, or persecution even if they were depicted in a negative manner; Belle was uncomfortable with Gaston's abuse, Dumbo's hallucinations came from drunkenness, the marching hyenas assisted Scar in his evil plan, Pinocchio's face grew red, Esmeralda was hurting from her persecution, and Pongo and Perdita saved the other dalmatians from Cruella's skinning.
I even heard the Bambi remake will not kill off Bambi's mother. If Disney does not even want to show death by shotgun, they must really be risk-averse.
Disney has also not had as many pure villains over the past decade as in decades past. The Disney Renaissance brought us Ursula, Gaston, Jafar, Scar, Governor John Ratcliffe, Judge Claude Frollo, Hades, and Clayton. In contrast, the Disney Revival produced Dr. Facilier, Mother Gothel, Turbo, Prince Hans, Callaghan, and Mayor Bellwether; the modern era made six villains compared to the Renaissance's eight. Plus, four of them were twist villains who start out rather positive.
I don't mind the lack of pure villains nor the presence of twist villains; sometimes, seemingly "good" people have evil intentions (i.e. Prince Hans in Frozen). Yet, the overall decline in villainy further suggests Disney's fear of showing kids unredeemed evil.
Besides, several of Disney's serious themes came from its villains. Tangled would not be about gaslighting if it weren't for Mother Gothel, for instance, and Beauty and the Beast would feature less patriarchal abuse without Gaston.
By avoiding dark and serious content in its films, Disney is inching closer to the "squeaky-clean" image that Walt Disney himself became dissatisfied with. Our modern society wants to protect kids from such scary things (even though it's important they know about them). Besides, Disney has long been accused of instilling false beliefs about life in kids; the company might be too afraid of any more criticism.
The company has still addressed serious themes over the past decade (such as prejudice in Zootopia). However, some adults scorn at the presence of such themes in "kids' movies."
Since most kids first watch these movies before age six (and even before three), a time when they cannot separate fantasy from reality, it makes since Disney has limited its risks. Perhaps the company seems more focused on young kids than before.
If Disney learns to market themselves well beyond toys for the under-six crowd, the company would make more room for risky subject matter. The Common Sense Media age ratings for most Disney films suggest it is best to wait until at least five, anyway. Yet, it is most important parents talk to kids about the movies they watch together, especially their serious subject matter. These increase rewatch value for when the kids grow up. For instance, Tangled is better than ever thanks to its focus on gaslighting.
Disney's most successful films have taken risks. For instance, Beauty and the Beast's dark moments gave it more emotional weight than ever seen before in a cartoon; that helped bring childless adults to the theater and possibly earned it a Best Picture nomination.
The company is making little progress from its risk-averse agenda. For instance, King Magnifico in Wish became the first pure Disney villain in years. Once Disney moves thorough sequels, remakes, and generic formulas that have tired people, they could hopefully be ready to embrace risky movies again.
What do you think? Do you agree that Disney has a risk-averse problem?
No comments:
Post a Comment