Villustrated

1

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT The Impact of Animation

“You know you can bring your kids to a Disney film

and you know it’s going to be good for them. You know it’s not going to say anything offensive, you know it’s going to have… some good heart, you know it’s going to be beautiful… and now we can give this magic to our kids.” (Angelina Jolie, 2013) Promoting her film role as the titular character in Maleficent (2014), actress Angelina Jolie communicates the benefit and nobility of the Walt Disney Company’s animated features (AssociatedPress, 2013).

Like Jolie, many regard the Disney films as simple, ethical children’s entertainment. However, whilst Disney’s prevalence as a household name in Western society remains undeniable (Burkitt, 2010), the values established in its 20th Century animated films are not constructive.

Damaging messages and subtexts are established through the company’s portrayal of villainy, with audiences subjected to the idea that an individual who is considered aesthetically abnormal should be identified as a threat. Simultaneously, the audience is exposed to a wealth of harmful stereotypes of racial, sexual and gender minorities, unjustly represented as detrimental to traditional American values.

Disney’s psychological influence on its target audience is irrefutable.

It has been “agreed upon by psychiatrists and psychologists” (Davis, 2006) that “visual media have an influence on children” (Davis, 2006) due to way that film, even with imagery portrayed as “realistic”, “appeals to the sense of fantasy” (Davis, 2006). Some state that Disney possesses “at least as much cultural authority” (Giroux 1995, cited by Ward 2002) as that of traditional educational sites, such as “schools, religious institutions, and the family” (Giroux 1995, cited by Ward 2002), and are “teaching specific roles, values and ideals” (Giroux 1995, cited by Ward 2002) beyond what many may believe children to be exposed to.

“Unlike the often hard-nosed, joyless reality of schooling, children’s films provide a high tech, visual space where adventure and pleasure meet in a fantasy world of possibilities (…)

I became aware of how necessary it was to move beyond treating these films as transparent entertainment to question the diverse representations and messages that constitute Disney’s conservative view of the world.” (Giroux, 1995) Simultaneously, the importance of animated films in the social development of children is recognized, noting the unsettling influence of Disney as an educator.

“Animated films are considered an important socializing agent for young children (…). Disney featurelength animated films are no exception; their dominant position in the (…) industry has ensured them as a powerful source of learning about societal constructions and of shaping adult identities, expectations and values across various generations.” (Towbin et al. 2004, cited

by Coca 2011) It has been shown that children as young as two years and six months already have grasps on such complex ideas as gender identity, able to determine the differences between masculinity and femininity (Cohan 1996, cited by Davis 2006).

As Davis (2006) notes: “Children (…) can even be shown to be aware of what is inappropriate – as well as appropriate – behavior within these roles. (…) psychological observation of normal children at play offers substantial backing to the notion that children develop a definite sense of gender-appropriate roles at comparatively young ages.”

Furth and Kane (1993, cited by Davis 2006) also examine how children as young as four years are “able to incorporate various cultural stereotypes, roles, and traditions into their play”. In one experiment, two girls chose the framework of a fairytale that mirrored the story of Cinderella (1950) in many aspects (Furth and Kane 1993, cited by Davis 2006), an understandable decision given that “social and cultural norms are usually contained within such stories” (Davis, 2006). As Furth and Kane (1996, cited by Davis) observe, “It was Western tradition, handed down in fairy tales and conveyed in the present culture”.

Many individuals, like Jolie, commend Disney animations as harmless entertainment. However, with an educational influence exceeding that of schools, families and religious institutions, we must heavily consider the values and subtexts featured in these animations that are primarily overlooked by adults, yet are subsequently being taught to younger generations, consequently shaping the values of Western society.

(Left) Promotional poster featuring Angelina Jolie in costume as the titular villain in Walt Disney Company’s upcoming live-action feature Maleficent (2014) (Below) Angelina Jolie gives a speech promoting the morality of the Walt Disney Company at the D23 Expo in 2013

2

THE FASHIONISTA Cruella de Vil and the Alternative Woman

(Above) Cruella de Vil as she appears in 101 Dalmatians(1961)

The introduction of the threat of the alternative can be found in the character of Cruella de Vil in Disney’s 101 Dalmatians (1961), an animated reworking of the British novel The Hundred and One Dalmatians (1956)

by Dodie Smith. Disney’s depiction features traditionally unfeminine and negative aesthetic features, such as her upturned nose, pasty grey skin, sharpened jaw-line, and a sunken-in face, exaggerated in a manner that, when placed on top of her ‘wastedaway’ frame, her features appear more customary to a corpse than a living human. It has been stated that, “with her Tallulah Bankhead voice and her death-skull’s head, she is out to disrupt wholesome family life (…) since she wears a seductive low-necked black dress and carries a big cigarette holder” (McReynolds 1971, cited

by Pinksy 2004).

The two other women in the film act as points of reference from which to draw comparisons; Nanny is never seen without her maid attire and “sweet, simple” Anita, after meeting Roger, dons her apron, arguably a visual representation of her housewife status, for the entirety of the film.

“Anita is everything Cruella is not: married and pursuing a nuclear family, kind, loving, quiet and beautiful. The audience knows that she is a “good” character (…) based on her wide-eyed, willowy and naive beauty.” (Nickels, 2011)

In contrast, Disney presents Cruella as an independent woman, with her untamable bichromatic hair, fur coats as her “only true love” and the male gender roles in her life played exclusively by her henchmen, Jasper and Horace. Such rendition is far removed from Smith’s original character, “married to a furrier who comes off as a hen-pecked husband” (Newman, 2012). Whilst both portrayals depict Cruella as a domineering woman, Disney conveys that “she is definitely a single lady” (Newman, 2012). Considering the film’s date of release, many people of the 1960s believed the values of the traditional nuclear family to be under threat (Orr, 2008), a demographic into which Walt Disney would appear to fall; the rise of women’s rights and the emergence of the single, working, woman had not been anticipated in the United States until this point in time (Orr, 2008), and so was responded to in the form of a wild, grotesque characterization of the alternative woman.

Mark I. Pinksy agrees: “One of the messages of the movie (…) seems to be that an independent woman with no apparent desire to marry and settle down is probably both bad and crazy. Cruella presents an alternative role for women in society, a role which at that time was still a caricature.” (Pinksy, 2004)

The name is not only a play on the words cruel and devil, instantly establishing the character as an antagonist, but the surname, constructed with the particle de, often a sign of French, Spanish, Belgian or Swedish nobility (Kellerman, S., O’Conner, P.T., 2010), implies that Cruella is of foreign descent. As McReynolds (1971, cited by Pinksy 2004) argues, “Cruella bears a foreign name and is meant to be a threat to homely American virtues”.

Race relations of the 1960s were unstable (Scholastic, 2013), and individuals of foreign descent would appear to have been considered a threat to traditional American values.

Despite Cruella’s basic Caucasian features, it is her name, appearance and mannerisms that contribute to her alternative lifestyle and thus establish her character as a foreign threat. As a result, Disney constructs a highly xenophobic depiction of foreigners that is subsequently unquestioned and accepted by the film’s influenceable target audience.

(Right) Cruella’s interactions with both Anita and Nanny serves to exhibit the contrast between the independant and domestic archetypes of women (Below) As her henchmen, Jasper and Horace are the only significant male roles in Cruella’s life unlike the original novel in which Cruella is married

3 THE ROYAL VIZIER

Jafar, The Middle East and Transgenderism

(Above) Jafar the Royal Vizier as he appears in Aladdin (1992)

The character of Jafar featured in Disney’s Aladdin (1992) similarly incorporates foreign qualities in order to establish his role as a villain. Unlike Cruella, however, Jafar’s design provides a greater significance than his actions in establishing him as a transcontinental threat. As Pinksy (2004) notes, “most of the villains in Aladdin have large noses, dark complexions, facial hair, and speak with accents,” all of which are arguably stereotypical Arabic features, and all of which are manifested in the portrayal of the film’s primary antagonist. The director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles, agrees that, when discussing his own child, “the Arab characters he sees [in the film] are violent or very nasty” (Al-Marayati 1993, cited by Pinksy 2004), telling the MacClatchy News Service on May 22, “I don’t want my child to grow up with any self-hating sentiments” (AlMarayati 1993, cited by Pinksy 2004).

Such characterization might not have such negative connotations were the protagonists of the film given the same treatment, considering the fictional setting of the narrative. However, it has been recognized that: “Smooth-faced Aladdin has Caucasian features and talks like a tanned resident of Southern California. Princess Jasmine – his love interest – has large almond eyes, but is otherwise Western.” (Pinksy, 2004)

The Westernization of the protagonists provides a stark contrast to the Middle Eastern stereotypes featured in the construction of the films antagonists, relying wholeheartedly on visual differences in race to establish which characters are “good” and which are “evil”. With the film’s release, Disney is promoting an exceedingly nationalistic and racist view of the Middle Eastern community, with Jafar established as the prime example of the threat of the foreigner. As Pinksy (2004) states, noting the relevance of the film in a post-9/11 period with contemporary society dominated by fear of terrorism, “I think it will be many years before American children will be able to watch Aladdin without connecting the characters with our image of Arab terrorists.”

Despite the overt racial commentary presented in the character of Jafar, the primary antagonist of Aladdin (1992) is not constructed through xenophobia alone. Much of the character’s deviation from the norm is established through a fear of crossing gender boundaries. Until Jafar’s transformation into a muscular, physically powerful genie at the climax of the film, the villain’s masculinity is subdued, facial hair notwithstanding.

As a result, his appearance drastically contrasts that of all other male characters featured in the animation.

“Jafar (…) wears a long gown with a nipped waist and sleeves that billow above the elbow and fit closely along the forearm to reveal his very slender lower arms and wrists. The pronounced ornamentation on the shoulders of his gown only direct more attention to the artifice of broad shoulders, not the true broad physique of a real man. All the other men (…) wear pants.” (Li-Vollmer et al.

2003, cited by Putnam, 2013) Along with his slender physique and being “the only male in the film to wear eye make-up, typically a female preoccupation” (Putnam, 2013), Jafar’s features, resemble those of the film’s female cast. Such deviation from traditionally masculine features and mannerisms is no mere coincidence. Andreas Deja, the lead animator of Jafar, was told by directors, Clements and Musker, to “look at Maleficent” in regards to Jafar’s movement (Putnam, 2013). Indeed the character’s resultant behavior, such as “how Jafar arches his eyebrows in disdain” (Putnam,2013), bears striking similarities to the iconic villain of Sleeping Beauty (1959). This subsequently constructs a character that intentionally blurs the lines of masculinity and femininity, generating a transgendered figure, and places him into the antagonistic role.

As Putnam (2013) notes: “This breeds blatant prejudices among children viewers regarding any difference, but especially those which are associated with transgenderism. (…) Thus the characterization of transgendered villains marks gender-bending characters (and eventually real people) as “evil” (…) it implies a larger statement is being made about what kind of people cross traditional gender boundaries in behavior and appearance – and that larger statement is one soaked in prejudice and disparagement.”

Alongside the abundance of racial stereotyping, this representation of transgenderism is used in the establishment of the primary villain of Aladdin (1992). Jafar therefore becomes a character through whom Disney plays on and promotes irrational homophobic and xenophobic fears in the form of a gross characterization of the threat of minorities, be such discrimination based on ethnic diversity or defiance of gender.

(Below) Aladdin and Jasmine both embody Western physical characteristics unlike the stereotypically Arabic features of Jafar.

4 THE SEA WITCH

Ursula, Cross-Dressing and Lesbianism

(Above) Ursula the Sea Witch as she appears in The Little Mermaid (1989)

Jafar would not be the first instance in which a Disney villain would communicate a transgendered presence.

Ursula, the Sea Witch of The Little Mermaid (1989), is a figure who constantly crosses gender boundaries through her theatrical exaggerations of masculinity and femininity.

The antagonist displays traditionally feminine characteristics in the form of her “makeup, saggy jowls and large breasts [which] create a vaguely female, voluptuous figure” (Putnam, 2013). However, it is through the exaggeration of these elements that, combined with her masculine characteristics, such as her overweight body, deep voice, and overtly sexualized body language, Ursula becomes “reminiscent of a drag queen on stage, overly made up and (…) appearing both female and male simultaneously” (Putnam, 2013). This association would appear non-coincidental, as “she was modeled on the modern drag queen Divine, according to the film’s directing animator” (Pinksy, 2004). Indeed, critics have noted that, “with her white blond hair, overwhelming size, deepened voice, and accentuated eyebrows, the resemblance to Divine is uncanny” (Putnam, 2013).

The references to the queer community do not end with the villain’s design and gender-bending characteristics.

The name Ursula is derived from the Latin word ursa, meaning “little bear” or “she-bear” (Behind the Name, 2013). According to Gulliver (2002), the term Ursula is also used in Western homosexual culture to describe a specific subculture of lesbian.

“Most lesbian bears are butch, fat or stockily built and sometimes taller than average. (…) Ursulas are downto-earth and are usually found in jeans or leather.” (Gulliver, 2002) Such description resonates with the appearance of the “obese” (Putnam, 2013) Sea Witch, who, with her short hair mimicking that of a stereotypical “butch” lesbian (The Free Dictionary, 2009), dwarfs the titular protagonist with her physique. Even her “huge black and purple” (Putnam, 2013) tentacles that form the lower portion of her body can be equated to the “leather” attire that Gulliver (2002) speaks of, rendering the villain as subsequently living up to her name and classification of Ursula.

The crossing of gender-boundaries in The Little Mermaid’s (1989) antagonist becomes increasingly apparent when considering the gender establishment in the film’s protagonists. Unlike Ursula’s embodiment of stereotypical homosexuality and her exaggerated combination of masculinity and femininity, Ariel is presented as the overtly heterosexual, dainty heroine, with traditionally feminized characteristics (Putnam, 2013).

“Ariel wears only shells on her breasts, while the top of her mermaid tail similarly dips intriguingly low beneath her belly button. In making [her] outfit form-fitting, especially around her breasts, waist and hips, Disney accentuates the ideal heterosexual female figure to viewers.”

(Putnam, 2013)

This customary representation of Disney heroines as “young beautiful women (…) with long hair and (…) flowing attire, which emphasizes their hour-glass figures” (Putnam, 2013), starkly contrasts the portrayal of Ursula, the aging antagonist with “white hair standing straight up” (Putnam, 2013) and “fat” (Pinksy, 2004) physique.

It is not only the female lead who is presented with an overt gender stability in The Little Mermaid (1989).

Prince Eric, with his broad-shouldered, square-jawed, and muscular physique set at a height above that of the female protagonist (Putnam, 2013), is the epitome of masculinity, establishing “standardized heterosexual male physical characteristics” (Putnam, 2013), and, much like Ariel, strikes a noticeable difference in gender identity from the cross-dressinginspired villain of the film.

Whilst some may celebrate the presentation of Ursula as “an ironic positive figure (…) who destabilizes gender through her excess and theatricality” (Zarranz 2007, cited by Putnam 2013), many have noted that her role as the film’s antagonist portrays gender deviation in a damaging manner. Putnam (2013) notes: “when transgendered qualities are marked as only apparent in evil characters, then a stigmatized standard of normative behavior is being created and promoted. (…) By creating only wicked characters as transgendered, Disney constructs an implicit evaluation of transgenderism, unequivocally associating it with cruelty, selfishness, brutality and greed.”

Such associations are preached to, and accepted by, Disney’s influenceable preschool audience, which may potentially hinder social development, understanding, and acceptance of deviation from the heteronormative. As Fiske and Taylor argue (1991, cited by Li-Vollmer and LaPointe 2003): “Children’s gender schemata (…) are less developed than those of adults, and are, therefore more susceptible to influence from new sources and experiences, including media; as young people’s gender schemata develop over time, they become more resilient to change.”

As a result, Disney’s consistent use of transgenderism in the antagonistic roles, such as those in Aladdin (1992) and The Little Mermaid (1989), generates false associations between unconventional gender, homosexuality, and the “bad” behavior of a villain. Combined with the adoration of the heterosexual protagonists, prescribed notions of homosexuality and gender deviation are introduced to a young audience, which, unless addressed by outside teachings or personal experiences, can then be accepted into adulthood, consequently influencing social perspectives, and creating an identity of what is to be considered “normal” in Western society.

(Above) Harris Glenn Milstead plays has a significant influence in Ursula’s design with his drag act of Divine (Right) Ariel and Eric both embody heteronormative qualities far removed from the cross-dressing Ursula

5 THE HUNTER

Gaston, Narcissism and Homosexulality

(Above) Gaston as he appears in Beauty and the Beast (1991)

With the company’s traditional employment of transgenderism in the portrayal of its villains, Disney’s portrayal of Gaston in Beauty and the Beast (1991) would appear to be an anomaly. With his appearance as “handsome and muscular” (JMK, 2008), and his characterization as a “sunny, virile young man” (Pinksy, 2004), Gaston exhibits qualities more commonly associated with the company’s male protagonists, which, being a villain, “goes against the Disney grain” (Pinksy, 2004). It is commonly derived that, by using a portrayal typically reserved for protagonists, Disney “break[s] traditional gender stereotypes” (Saliba, 2013), and, with Gaston’s reveal as the antagonist (Saliba, 2013), subverts the company’s previous teachings of visual appearance being directly relative to morality, arguably one of the film’s morals.

However, one could argue that it is Gaston’s exaggerated hypermasculinity that establishes him as a villain.

Such notion of excess in terms of gender characteristics is not uncommon in Disney’s antagonists, with the equally “overwhelming size” of Ursula (Putnam, 2013) and the theatricality of Cruella de Vil who “blows into the house like a tornado” (Pinksy, 2004). Some critics have argued that Gaston’s demonstration of excessive masculinity is compensatory, intending to mask the character’s insecurities revolving around his sexual identity.

“[Gaston] covets heterosexual status in pursuing Belle, the beauty of the title; but he constantly ignores both her and the trio of blonde bombshells that swoon over him. He is only truly interested in male gazes, and blossoms in… his all-male lodge, where he sings a showstopper celebrating his own masculinity… [Gaston] is the epitome of camp.”

Roth (1996) Such exhibition of the homosexual stereotype would, much like Ursula, appear to be intended. Deja, who worked as the supervising animator on Jafar in Aladdin (1992) and Gaston in Beauty and the Beast (1991) (IMDb, 2013), is openly gay and, according to Schweizer (1998, cited by Pinksy 2004), modeled Gaston on “preening West Hollywood muscle clones” he came to identify at the gym. As a result, despite the character’s seemingly constructive design in terms of subverting pre-existing associations of gender defiance with villainy, the character’s excessive masculinity reduces Gaston to a camp, theatrical figure, and plays on negative stereotypes of homosexuality, and in doing so, associates stereotypically gay conduct with narcissistic villainy.

(Right) Gaston is only truly interested in male gazes such as those in his all-male lodge or his sidekick Le Fou

6 THE SNOW QUEEN

Elsa and the Redefinition of Villainy

(Above) Elsa the Snow Queen as she appears in Frozen (2013)

Disney’s 21st Century animated features deter from the company’s traditional use of negative, one-dimensional caricatures of minorities to associate with villainy, such to the extent that Disney’s own established messages of discrimination are being subverted. The company’s latest animated feature based on the fairytale The Snow Queen (Holden, 2013), Frozen (2013) would appear to be, according to the voice of the film’s unconventional, “awkward” princess, the “most untraditional movie Disney has ever done” (Bell, 2013).

The feature introduces a complexity in Disney’s interpretation of villainy which has been previously downcast.

Elsa was originally conceived as the “much more conventional” (Robinson, 2013) and antagonistic rendition of the source material’s Snow Queen.

Yet the final character “is not a villain at all, but a heroine” (Ebiri, 2014), despite creating “most of the challenges the film’s more typical heroes (…) have to contend with” (Ebiri, 2014).

The result is a far more realistic interpretation of antagonism than Disney’s previous efforts, presenting the

(Below) Prince Hans as he appears in Frozen (2013)

traditionally evil figure of the fairytale as, “not a villain” (Ebiri, 2014), but “a girl who’s having trouble coming to terms” with her abilities (Ebiri, 2014), as opposed to the one-dimensional caricatures who dominate Disney’s previous takes on villainy.

The true villain of Frozen (2013), revealed at the climax of the film, exposes greed and deception more commonly attributed to the “wicked characters” (Putnam, 2013) of Disney’s traditional villains. His appearance, however, completely subverts pre-existing aesthetics associated with villainy. A masculine and “handsome male lead” (Putnam, 2013), until the final act, Prince Hans is, by all assumptions, another of Disney’s “strong, commanding princes” (Putnam, 2013). Even the sense of exaggeration and theatricality traditionally exhibited in Disney’s villains, such as Gaston and Ursula, is entirely removed from the character’s portrayal.

He even shares the archetypal “Love Song” with Princess Anna.

However, as the composers reveal (Lopez et al. 2013, cited by Robinson 2013), the “Love Song” is actually the “Villain Song” in disguise. When singing about “searching my whole life to find my own place”, Hans is not referring to falling in love with Anna, but rather threateningly insinuating his intentions of seizing her kingdom (Robinson, 2013). Thus the character’s design and narrative completely subverts Disney’s usual depictions of the “strong, commanding” prince (Putnam, 2013) as the hero, and introduces a villain based not on harmful forcing the film’s target audience to reconsider the idea of appearance directly relating to morality that has been so commonly exhibited in Disney films preceding it.

the application of modern sensibilities (Gad, 2013), the issue of archaic and damaging messages reaching current generations is still apparent.

When Disney’s previous animations, such as 101 Dalmations (1961), Aladdin (1992), The Little Mermaid (1989), and Beauty and the Beast (1991), still rich in homophobic, racist and gender-based discrimination, are considered “timeless” (Lee, 2011) and continuously rereleased, their harmful associations with villainy are subsequently thrust upon a new generation of influenceable young minds, allowing Disney’s grotesque and damaging portrayals of social minorities to influence the beliefs of subsequent generations.

However, with the upcoming release of Maleficent (2014) supposedly providing a narrative that explores Sleeping Beauty (1959) from the perspective of the antagonist (IMDb, 2014), Disney would appear to be revisiting its “classic tales” and applying a new level of context in order to humanize its villains, creating a far more morally grey, complex characterization, and diminishing the pre-existing emphasis on a character’s aesthetic qualities as the definition of their role in a narrative.

With a live-action reimagining of classic villain Cruella de Vil supposedly in production (Kit, 2013), it would appear that Jolie’s perception (2013) of Disney films as inoffensive, beautiful, and overall “good” for children may not be as implausible as initially considered, and could, slowly but surely, be edging itself closer to reality.

Whilst some may celebrate the company’s “third golden age” (Gad, 2013) of animation, and applaud Disney’s progressive approach to its recent films through

Alexander J Ward