Rooney Gooding-Williams & Morton

While I understood the bulk of Gooding-William’s argument and do believe he made valid and strong points, some of his ideas I do not agree with. I found his analysis of the “Euro-centric picture of Africa” interesting, as well as the point that the depiction of the circle of life as “endless” might “reduc[e] Africa to the endless reproduction of a natural and pre-historic course of life”, devoid of cultural, political, social, etc development. However, The Lion King is about animals and not people. Morton’s point that “Africa thus becomes the repository for timeless values, although that does not mean that the place itself is without history” articulates that the writers employed the circle of life to impact social values (that are undoubtedly western) but it never broaches actual African history (or the history of the specific region that the Lion King takes place in because Africa is not a country nor does it have one ~history~).

I also didn’t totally agree with his analysis of Scar- primarily that “the future he envisions would not entail the persistence of a form of life that ‘has always been’, but the creation of a utopia that has not yet existed. Scar fails, because his will to create utopia creates dystopia”. I would not say that Scar ever aimed to create a Utopia, rather his own ideal dystopia. I don’t think he fails at this except that he destroys the ecosystem, though his goal was never to preserve the circle of life. Morton argues that “it does not strike me that Scar and the hyenas represent a victory of history over the timeless ‘circle of life’”- Scar’s rise to power is not the one historical event given to ~Africa~. The Circle of Life is instead used as a metaphor for “law, order, and enlightened hierarchy”, and Scar merely disrupts it momentarily.

Finally, I don’t agree that the writers of The Lion King were going for a metaphor for American Inner City. While there are absolutely elements of this, primarily with the Elephant Graveyard representing the inner city/slums/projects/poor part of town, and that element was likely intentional whether consciously or unconsciously, as a whole, I don’t see it. The Elephant Graveyard and the accepts/portrayal of the hyenas is problematic or racist or classist. Yes. But rather than an intentional and explicit commentary, this likely was a product of the unchecked biases of the creators as they tried to portray evil.

Rooney Wisniewski's Sundiata Response

I found this story delightful in a way that only children’s books are. It was fast-paced, it didn’t dwell on details, it was colorful and easy to understand, there was a clear message, and there was no grey area between good and evil. Sundiata is honourable and pure throughout the entire story, making it clear at the end that he is both the answer to his kingdom’s strife and a perfect king. He never gives up, he allows all to exist in their ~rightful place~, he never displays negative emotion, et cetera.

The griot plays an incredibly important role in this tale, as does Rafiki in Disney’s version. Balla Fasseke is Sundiata’s advocate and friend, encouraging him and speaking on his behalf to the people. Sundiata would not be remotely successful without him- the very first words Sundiata has the ability to speak are “Balla, you are my griot”. The emotional connection between the two is apparant, as Sundiatanever forgets Balla Fasseke and thinks of him often during his period of exile.

I was a little confused by some of the plot developments because they happen extremely quickly- Sumanguru is introduced out of the blue, the long period of exile lasts three paragraphs, and the details of the intense battle read a little like a list. It definitely wasn’t a super exciting wording for a battle scene, leaving the happy ending a little unsatisfying and abrupt. Perhaps I am simply used to the overwhelming action of Marvel movies and not that in orally passed down folk tales, but I was looking for more details!!

Character parallels were more evident the more I considered it. At first read, the story seemed wildly different from Disney’s version, but the general plot line is actually pretty similar. Scar assumed all of the villain roles in one: the council of elders who do not allow Sundiata to ascend to the throne, Sassouma Berete’s fear of Sundiata’s strength, and of course, Samanguru, the sorcerer king. Rafiki takes the place of both griots, and I guess Timone and Pumba are the king of Mema? Perhaps.

How kingly. Though at the end of the Lion King, they do find their own empire…

I love Timone and Pumbaa

One thing I found interesting is that Disney absolutely removed the polygamy/ presentation of Sologon Kedjou and her and the King’s marriage from the movie. This makes sense because that storyline doesn’t fit with western values/ norms of marriage, but they didn’t even try to adapt it they just cut it. Also, there isn’t a narrator - or griot - who speaks directly to the audience in the movie, whereas the beginning of Sundiata definitely feels like someone is talking to you, reminiscent of the oral history of the tale.

Rooney Disney's Mary Poppins Response

As soon as the opening scene of Mary Poppins came on my computer screen, I felt like I was transported back to the couch with my dad, as I mentioned in my last blog post. I have many little cousins ranging from the ages of not yet born to 12, so I have watched many movies again as a teenager or ‘adult’. When I watch movies that are particularly nostalgic, like Mary Poppins, the Lion King, the Sound of Music, etc., it is always kind of a mix between a little weird but also heartwarming. I love music and showtunes, so the overture and key Mary Poppins songs especially tugged at my heartstrings.

Specifically, “Feed the Birds” stood out to me because when I was little I hated that scene, mostly because the color scheme of the scene was depressing- greys, blacks, and browns. But today, it was a much more emotional experience and I understood the message for the first time. It had never occurred to me that Mary Poppins was appealing to the children to notice and care for all people in all walks of life- even the small, old woman with the words that are “simple and few” calling to the people to feed the little birds. It is even more significant to me that the little birds are pigeons, the typically gross city birds that are looked down on. I interpreted Mary Poppins’ lesson as taking care to respect, care, or even just notice the small members of society. As Mr. Banks is a banker, one who ‘can’t see beyond the end of his nose’, and who has a high and mighty, superior, self-centered attitude, Mary Poppins is pleading to the children to, if they are going to follow in the footsteps of their father, have a wider and more compassionate perspective.

I found Mrs. Banks to be a little saddening, mostly because of the irony of her intense passion for the Votes for Women movement- except when Mr. Banks was around. She takes a back seat to all decisions and action, even when the role is a traditional female one. Mary Poppins or Mr. Banks himself take the forefront in those scenarios.

I have always loved Bert, his silliness, undying love for Mary Poppins, and genuine kindness. I still don’t understand why he loves Mary Poppins so much, and am not sure whether his love is romantic or platonic. There certainly is not a romantic side to Mary Poppins, but I have always wondered if he loved her. His accent is awful.

Mary Poppins is very different from P.L. Travers’ Mary Poppins, but definitely retains certain aspects of her predecessor. She is ‘firm, but never cruel’, still a little vain (‘practically perfect in every way’), and she ‘never explains anything’. It is definitely notable that P.L. Travers hates the film version of the nanny, mainly critiquing that she is too kind. P.L. Travers also despises the animated versions, particularly when Bert dances with the penguins. Personally, I always loved that scene- it felt incredibly magical and fantastic.

Alexa Rooney, P.L. Travers Mary Poppins

The first time I watched Mary Poppins sticks out to me quite clearly in my early childhood memories. I hadn’t watched many musicals yet, and I was still in the stage where my older brother’s opinions deeply swayed mine. He was anti-musicals; my dad was very intent on expanding our film knowledge, especially the “classics” (basically anything Julie Andrews). I expected Mary Poppins to be boring and historical. I was wrong, and delighted by the magic Mary Poppins brought- especially the scene with the flavor and color changing delicious medicine.

Reading that scene last week filled me with warmth and transported me immediately back to my basement, sitting on the red couch with my dad. I adored the film then and I adored the book now, both times surprising myself with how much I was taken by Mary Poppins. Of course, being 10 or so years older, I picked up on more plot lines, themes, metaphors, jokes, et cetera than I did when I was younger.

Primarily, Mary Poppin’s vanity and attitude that verges on rudeness sticks out in the story. She is magical, mysterious, and whimsical, but the reader is struck by her self-absorption. She stops in every mirror to admire herself and adjust so that she is perfect, she never explains anything or tells the children what is going on, and she often treats the children as if they are annoying little pests. She seems to represent a few typical adult tropes for children during the time period, perhaps even modelled off of adults in P.L. Travers’ life. Children are often curious, and in awe of the world around them- so even trivial things could seem magical. Perhaps there was an adult in Travers’s life that regarded her as mischievous, annoying, or perstering, and treated her the way Mary Poppins treats Jane and Michael: never answering her questions, making her feel small, shushing her, and more.

Yet the children adore Mary Poppins, regardless of what she does or says to them. They are taken by the magic she brings to their lives, ever curious of all of the fantastic events that seem to follow Mary Poppins around. I have always loved the laughing gas scene, which seems so full of pure, innocent, and untouched joy. It is just one example of a seemingly crazy thing that happens to the children when they are with Mary Poppins. It is representative of a phenomenon where children will always look up to their caretakers- there is a sense of unconditional love and admiration that could verge on problematic in certain adult-child relationships.

Travers plays the long-accepted concept of adult-child relationships, where adults have the power, authority, and upper hand. In terms of the admiration of Mary Poppins and the way she treats the children, Travers likely drew on personal experience and typical relationship and power dynamics. But there are occasions where the children become the caretakers, and the adults become foolish, annoying, curious, or admiring. The laughing gas scene, as I mentioned above, is a great example, as well as some of Mr. and Mrs. Banks’ decisions. The children show levels of responsibility and caring for eachother in ways that the adults surrounding them seem unable to do.

Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves undoubtedly casts a spell on its audience. The film, when watched at face value, inspires feelings of innocence, purity, true love, good triumphing over evil, et cetera.

From the mines with dazzling gems of every color, the grandeur of the castle, the beauty of Snow White’s resting place, and the gorgeous sunset that she and the Prince ride of into, the graphics of this movie are irresistible. The color schemes of each scene clarify whether or not it is ‘pure’ or ‘evil’, allowing color to play a significant role in the plot. The Queen’s color scheme is very harsh and intense: deep greens, reds, and blacks. The dwarves’ cottage has a homey color scheme, with warmer colors from the fire and light present. In the mines, the gems are vibrant colors contrasting with the dark greys and blacks, and pastel flowers present in depictions of the enchanting forest. The color schemes reinforce the mysticism of the dwarves, the animals, the setting, and the forest while keeping each aspect feeling innocent and sweet to the audience.

Below the facade of cheerful chipmunks, happy little songs, and individualized gooseberry pies, however, lie deeply problematic gender roles and plot points. While Snow White is not 7 in this version, she is still quite young and foolish. She makes no decisions, she is a passive character, and she is subservient to each character she interacts with, except perhaps the adorable woodland animals. She only displays an opinion when she forces the dwarves to wash her hands. Other than that, she spends her time cooking, cleaning, and dreaming of the prince who will come save her. A small but aggravating detail was that Snow White barely opened her eyes- whenever she was speaking, she acted like Bashful, averting eye contact and keeping her eyes mostly closed.

What example is she setting for the little girls fixed to the movie screen? This subservient, opinionless stereotype is only perpetuated by Grumpy’s horrendous commentary throughout the entire movie: “Angel, ha! She's a female! And all females is poison! They're full of wicked wiles!” But it is revealed at the end that Grumpy secretly does love Snow White just as much as the other dwarves, which reminds me of the typical playground trope that boys will be mean to you if they like you. This does not teach young girls healthy ways to view themselves, their role in society, their potential, or the way they should interact with boys and men; nor does it teach little boys healthy ways to talk about or interact with women. It perpetuates male aggression and women-blaming (Grumpy’s quote above) while teaching girls to just hope males like them and not to stick up for themselves.

Further, the concept of True Love’s First Kiss does not reinforce the importance of consent. What is especially concerning about this consent-less kiss is that Snow White is actually brought to life by it. Her life was not just saved but completely renewed by the man who came to her aid when it was convenient for him and who put absolute minimum effort into reviving her. Both versions of this tale provide poor female and male role models to both little girls and little boys watching.

Rooney, Snow White (Grimm Version)

As I read Grimm’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, there were many things that struck me. Primarily, how unrealistic many of the plot points are. I am aware that this is a fairy tale and is obviously unrealistic; however, I also believe that there are some things that do not deserve to surpass logic in the name of ~magic~. For example: how on Earth could the prince fall in completely in love with Snow White at first sight while she is dead?!

Another significant and questionable plot point: regardless of when, where, and in what dimension you reside, isn’t it always aggressive to kill a 7 year old because they are prettier than you, a middle-aged woman? Even if you are the Queen? As if that wasn’t enough, the noble Queen demands that her hunter return with Snow White’s heart as proof that the girl is dead- and when the hunter returns with a (boar’s) heart, she proceeds to EAT it. Every new development in that story line increases in psychopathy.

The scene where Snow White enters the dwarves’ cottage is heartwarmingly reminiscent of Goldilocks entering the bear’s home: “none of them suited her”. I am positive that there is a reason for this and that the two are connected in some way, though I have no evidence to back that statement up.

The dwarves were exceptionally kind and welcoming to little Snow White. It is obvious, in this section, that Snow White remains very childish OR that she has a woman’s stupidity and cannot resist material temptations, obviously. Either one. I have a few questions: how much time has passed? Is she still 7 years old? If so- the end of this story is much creepier than I had ever thought. Second, why do the dwarves not pick up on the fact that she continues to fall for the Queen’s deceit? If they were going to leave her unattended at all, why do they continue to do so after she nearly dies?

The Queen seems to not fully understand how to kill someone. If Snow White is as foolish as she comes across, the Queen could easily ask for a hug and stab her, among other methods. Simple! But a tight corset and a poison comb? Clearly, ineffective and inefficient. This must be a very different world from Game of Thrones.

Also, considering the quote: “When she heard the glass speak thus she trembled and shook with rage. "Snow-white shall die," she cried, "even if it costs me my life!"” This method seems extremely counterproductive, considering the entire motivation for killing Snow White is so the Queen can be the fairest of them all. If the Queen is dead, she will not be able to accomplish her only goal! Silly Queen!

The Dwarves remain a warm presence in an otherwise creepy tale, insisting on burying Snow White on the mountain with flowers and birds and light rather than in the dark ground. But the King’s son (…which King…? Snow White is the daughter of the King?) ruins this moment of tranquility: “Let me have it [Snow White’s coffin and body] as a gift, for I cannot live without seeing Snow-white. I will honour and prize her as my dearest possession.” He wants to ‘prize’ a CORPSE that he did not know or see until she was a CORPSE?! I don’t believe I have the words to explain how unsettling this is.

I find the end of this story a little hasty, though perhaps this is purposeful. Certainly, there is a lot to unpack- Snow White might be a classic damsel in distress, though if she is 7, her supposed foolishness is fitting for her age and complete lack of supervision. The King’s son reaches unprecedented levels of creepiness as does the Queen in terms of anger and jealousy. But I do like the dwarves.