Tag Archives: Animation

In my last blog I applied the “Handsome Heroes and Vile Villains” by Amy M. Davis to the Disney animated feature The Emperor’s New Groove (2000), so for this extra class blog, I will apply the other reading to another piece of media.

I will start out this blog by admitting that this is a total stretch, but I will be applying Suzanne Williams-Rautiola’s “Animated Fathers: Representations of Masculinity in The Simpsons and King of the Hill” to the Netflix series BoJack Horseman.

BoJack Horseman (voiced by Will Arnett)

The show BoJack Horseman is about a has-been television star, BoJack Horseman, who starred in a successful 90s sitcom called Horsin’ Around. In the show, he played a surrogate father. The series portrays BoJack Horseman more on the Homer Simpson side of the masculinity continuum, away from the Hank Hill side, as discussed by Williams-Rautiola. That is, BoJack “fails” at masculinity through his baffoonery and by not meeting hegemonic expectations of American society.

The chapter talks about the characterization of masculinity à la Nick Trujillo, whereby “hegemonic masculinity” features the following components: “(1) physical force and control, (2) occupational achievement in an industrialized, capitalistic society, (3) patriarchy, which includes being breadwinners, family protectors, and strong father figures, (4) frontiersmanship, including the daring and romance of the past and outdoorsman of today, and (5) heterosexuality” (96-97).

She goes on to note that Homer Simpson functions in this paradigm of masculinity by following some of these characteristics with the addition of “baffoonish characteristics” where he is “at best, […] benign and inferior, at worst, an embarrassment” (97). Likewise, BoJack Horseman functions in a similar way. However, while Homer exhibits these characteristics to make him function somewhat properly within hegemonic masculinity; in the case of BoJack Horseman, these qualities are what identify him as a “failure.”

In BoJack Horseman, (1) he has no control and doesn’t function successfully as an adult, (2) while he had enjoyed success and fame earlier in his life, in the 90s, he is currently a has-been with no prospects, (3) he played a strong father figure in his fictional sitcom life, but in reality, he is not father-material and can’t even keep a functional relationship due to his financial instability along with his vices, (4) he is absolutely not an outdoorsman, but requires the trappings of modernity and life indoors, in the private sphere, and (5) while he is heterosexual on the show, he doesn’t practice it in any sort of functional manner.

He is made a baffoon constantly in that through his vices or just his inept nature, nothing ever goes his way and he screws up practically every endeavor he attempts. Everyone around him seems more intelligent and capable than he. In the opening scene of the first episode, BoJack is on a talk-show that talks about his past role on Horsin’ Around, Charlie Rose (the host of the talk show) describes the show as being inferior crap but managed to stay on the air for nine seasons (thereby critiquing BoJack’s skill and status as an actor). After Rose intros BoJack by introducing the show and showing some clips, the first words out of BoJack’s mouth are an apology for being late for the show (which further suggests he is incompetent and inept). Finally, when Rose asks him what he’s been up to since the show’s cancellation, BoJack has absolutely nothing to talk about. Later in the show, BoJack is exasperated and asks his Penguin Publishing Agent (the character is a penguin) “why did I say that I could write a book?!” A tension arises with his agent because he’s supposed to be writing his memoirs, but he fails at it and is crippled by his feelings of failure and being a “has-been.”

Thus, BoJack is coded as a failure for not living up to the expectations of hegemonic masculinity.

In “Dashing Heroes,” Amy M. Davis talks about the various types of characters male heroes play in Disney animated movies. One such character type is the frenemies; which is what I want to talk about in this blog. Here, Davis says that frenemies are “heroes who find themselves thrown together, linked by a common love interest (which makes them rivals) or a common goal” (130). In the chapter, she talks about three sets of frenemies, including Ichabod Crane and Brom Bones, Quasimodo and Phoebus, and Wreck-it-Ralph and Fix-it-Felix.

The frenemies pair I would like to talk about is Kuzco and Pacha from The Emperor’s New Groove (2000). While these two are not driven apart because they love the same women (Pacha is married and has a family in the movie, while Kuzco is characterized as being incapable of loving anyone but himself), they find themselves working towards a common goal.

Kuzco and Pacha in The Emperor’s New Groove

At the beginning of the film, the pair are established as adversaries. Kuzco indicates to Pacha that he intends to destroy Pacha’s family’s home in order to build a pool and waterslide for himself in a palace he’s calling Kuzco-Topia. Kuzco, being a mean and rotten emperor, gets turned into a llama by his power-hungry and evil advisor, Yzma.

After being turned into a llama, Kuzco finds himself on Pacha’s cart and demands that Pacha take him back to his palace. Pacha does so only when Kuzco agrees that if he helps Kuzco, he will build Kuzco-Topia somewhere else and save Pacha’s land. Kuzco agrees, although completely intending on doing what he wants after getting back to the palace, which means not following through on the deal with Pacha.

However, through their pseudo-alliance, they find themselves with a common adversary, Yzma, and the pair end up bonding throughout the course of the film. At the end of the film, Kuzco becomes more in touch with his humanity and becomes a better person through his friendship with Pacha, and Pacha comes to understand Kuzco. After returning to the palace and after being restored to his human status, Kuzco does honor his agreement with Pacha, and builds Kuzco-Topia on a nearby hill, leaving Pacha’s home untouched.

This pair breaks the chapter’s goals of considering non-aristocratic characters (as Kuzco is an emperor), however the frenemy character type shows up in this film regardless and both characters are changed by their relationship [friendship] with each other.

After watching  Fantastic Mr. Fox in class, I am having trouble picking just one fool. I believe both Ash and Kristofferson are fools in the vein of Valerie Palmer-Mehta’s article “The Wisdom of Folly: Disrupting Masculinity in King of the Hill.”

A Case for Ash

Ash (fox on the far left)

Ash is the same kind of fool and following practically the same line of examples as Bobby in King of the Hill. Palmer-Mehta sets Bobby up as a fool because he challenges the hegemony of the show and challenges traditional expectations. The examples from the article cite athletic ‘weaknesses’ or ‘abnormalities.’

Well, Ash has similar abnormalities as Bobby. He’s not athletic. He isn’t as good as his father at the game they play in gym class and he isn’t invited to steal chickens with his family. He is odd and strange because additionally, he wears a cape and spits when he’s upset.

Another way to think about this is that Ash is voiced by Jason Schwartzman, whom is always abnormal and challenges dominant culture or hegemonic ideology in his roles (especially in Wes Anderson films).

A Case for Kristofferson

Kristofferson in Fantastic Mr. Fox

He, like Ash and Bobby, defies expectations. He is called tall, which makes him weird and strange, when comparing him to the other foxes. Also, unlike Ash, he is athletic and is invited to steal chickens and cider with Mr. Fox.

However, this is where it gets tricky. He is unlike the others because he is actually gifted. Ash is seemingly bad at anything physical in nature; while Mr. Fox is bad because he frequently gets caught in his attempt to steal. This Kristofferson’s ability or natural skill, makes him different than the others and thus strange.

In both cases, Ash and Kristofferson, I believe they are natural fools, in that they “genuinely exhibit some type of deficiency or abnormality” (185). And they both break the dominant characteristics of those around them and challenge normality. Thus, to me, both characters could be considered fools.

As I was reading “Post-Princess Models of Gender: The New Man in Disney/Pixar” by Ken Gillam and Shannon R. Wooden, I couldn’t help but think of the movie Wall-E. Gillam and Wooden suggest that Pixar movies, with their male protagonists, redefine masculinity via three maneuvers: emasculating the male protagonist, providing the male protagonist with a homosocial relationship/interaction, and then having the protagonist assume his new status as a “new man.”

Wall-E, the robot, goes through this same trajectory in his film. First, Wall-E is established as an alpha male, much like Gillaim and Wooden track Lightning McQueen in Cars. Wall-E is introduced as masculine at the beginning of the film through showing his determination as he conducts his garbage collecting work. He is shown as being fast, efficient, and tenacious.

Wall-E stacks his compacted garbage cubes

Very soon, he experiences what Gillam and Wooden call the “emasculation of the alpha male” (3). As Wall-E is going about his trash collecting and compacting activities, a new being arrives on his desolate planet, and this new being, the female robot Eve, turns out to be magnitudes more aggressive than he is. Eve has lasers and attacks anything on sight, no questions asked. She is newer, sleeker, and more powerful than he is. She is new and modern, while he is obsolete and falling apart. He keeps spare parts in case he needs a replacement, within his personal collection (or horde) in his home.

He is emasculated not only through Eve’s status as being better and newer than he is, but by his loneliness. He begins the film as the only being on the planet. He has nothing in his life but his work and the objects that he collects that helps him pass the time. When Eve arrives, he sees the potential for companionship.

Wall-E has his own form of homosocial interaction. While not the homoerotic subtext of Mr. Incredible in The Incredibles, Wall-E’s instance of homosociality is his affinity for a musical. He finds comfort in the musical Hello, Dolly! frequently throughout the movie, with a particular attachment to the song “Put On Your Sunday Clothes.” In our homophobic and heteronormative culture, things like musicals and musical theater are associated with gay culture, so his attachment to this musical and this song further emasculates him. But, like Gillam and Wooden suggest in the article, his relationship with this song guides him towards his assuming a role as a “new man.” Gillam and Wooden say that “the intimacy emerging ‘between men’ is constructed through an overt and shared desire for a feminized object” (6).

Wall-E learns about love by watching Hello, Dolly!

By watching Hello, Dolly! over and over again, Wall-E learns about the importance of companionship, affection, and love. It teaches him socialization skills, such that he knows how to act when Eve arrives.

Finally, Wall-E fulfills the cycle described by Gillam and Wooden when he sacrifices himself at the end for Eve, exhibiting what Gillam and Wooden call an “express[ion of] care-taking, nurturing love, and a surrender to the good of the beloved” (6).

Thus, the film Wall-E becomes another example of Pixar’s mission of redefining masculinity, allowing children to see another path, another way to be, as opposed to the stereotypical alpha male, which has become problematized in today’s #MeToo culture.

Similar to my last blog (about Brode’s misguided portrayal of Disney), I have to disagree with the ideas posed by Joel Gwynne in “‘Might as Well be Dead’: Domesticity, Irony and Feminist Politics in Contemporary Animation Comedy.”

Gwynne’s article suggests that while animated sitcoms such as The Simpsons and King of the Hill present old fashioned stereotypes about femininity, they use them as critique. He claims that “[“Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish”] illustrates the ways in which the domestic space can be modified as a location of empowerment” (62). In the episode, Bart finds a mutated fish with three eyes that he brings home. The mutated fish was a result of the toxic waste from Mr. Burns’ plant. Mr. Burns, while running for political office, has dinner at the Simpsons’ house, but before doing so, Marge is given rules to follow while Mr. Burns is there. These rules include things such as what she’s allowed to say and how she’s supposed to act. Basically, she is supposed to stick with easy, non-political small talk and she is supposed to just serve food. Gwynne claims that Marge subverts this seemingly oppressive situation by feeding Mr. Burns the three eyed fish, the mutant he is responsible for. When he can’t eat it, he assumes responsibility for environmental contamination and thus, does not win the election. Gwynne says she assumes agency in this episode by rebelling against her expected role.

However, like my problem with the analysis of the “feminist princesses” (Snow White and Cinderella), I have to also take issue with this analysis of Marge. This is not agency or empowerment, this is simply resistance. And the person resisting is the person who is not in power, thus the person without agency. She is still serving food. She is still providing houseWORK in the episode. It is not empowering agency, it is repackaged oppression.

Similarly, in the episode “The Marge-ian Chronicles,” Lisa signs up to be a part of a group selected to colonize Mars. Her interest in this project intrigues her family and everyone signs up to go as well. However, during training, Marge is fascinated by the technical manual that describes housework in the station.

http://www.simpsonsworld.com/video/666047043577

“Nutrition zone sterilization sequence,” Marge reads. “Oh! That’s just kitchen clean up! Fun!” She adds excitedly. Lisa tries to tell her that this is not fun but Marge says, “if you think of them as chores, they can be a blast.” Thus, in this episode, Marge is still assuming the role of caretaker and cleaner, even as she’s training for a space mission.

Although I have found all of the readings from Douglas Brode’s Multiculturalism and the Mouse: Race and Sex in Disney Entertainment to be shockingly misguided (read: obscenely kind towards Disney and his legacy), the line I cannot get past without chuckling is: “As always, Walt stood with the rebels” (140). This is extraordinarily funny to me. Disney is nothing close to a rebel. He is a purveyor of dominant culture. Disney products (especially the media) are hegemonic objects. There is absolutely nothing rebellious about a single one of the animated features produced by Disney.

In “Our Bodies, Ourselves” Brode attempts to make the case that Disney princesses are feminists, especially Snow White, because, yes, they may enact traditionally subordinate feminine roles such as housework, they do it by choice (178). Essentially saying, no, no, Disney films aren’t sexist because the female characters aren’t forced to do housework, they choose to! They want to do it! The problem in attempting to reward Disney for his forward-feminist representation by saying his characters depict this new kind of feminism of choice ultimately lies in the fact that Snow White is choosing to do nothing, she is a fictional character. Thus, the dominant, hegemonic, white male culture of Disney is what is creating this ideology and these narratives.

When talking about how Cinderella is a feminist story, he discusses the working scene where the mice sing to Cinderella: “Cinderelly, Cinderelley….” In his discussion, he speaks about the organization of the mice. That they manage to get their required tasks completed because “[o]nly when a woman is in charge do men perform menial jobs properly” (187). The section of the chapter that attempts to empower women by saying, ‘look at how important Disney thinks women are, he basically says men are so incompetent that they couldn’t do basic housework without the help of a woman’; is completely ignoring the fact that the scene is completely about foregrounding the household oppression Cinderella suffers every day at the hands of the evil stepsisters.

Media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOe6Nsf-KGA [YouTube video of “Work Song” from Cinderella (1950)]

Thus, Brode’s argument is horrifically problematic and comparable to issues with current feminism and the battle against “post-feminist thought”; that is problems in suggesting that we live in a world that the goals of feminism have been achieved. Women are portrayed doing housework because women want to do housework. Indeed, feminism still has a long way to go.

In “Starlets, Subscribers, and Beneficiaries: Disney, Latino Children, and Television Labor” Christopher Chávez and Aleah Kiley discuss latino/latina representation in Disney media properties. When thinking about the Disney animated feature Coco (Lee Unkrich, 2017) a few of their observations become extremely relevant. They are:

• “Latinos have not been adequately represented either in front of or behind the screen” (2618).
• “Latino representations on television are produced by large conglomerates with little equity in the Latino community. At best, these networks may develop programming with hired Latino help. At worst, they are creating programming with the help of producers who have little or no knowledge of Latino culture” (2618).
• “Disney’s representation of Latinos and children of color from essentialized stereotypes to ambiguous hybridity. The new racially hybrid characters promote recognition for progressive inclusion while erasing serious realities about U.S. racial inequalities” (2619).

To address the first point: Although there are countless animated films (including those by Disney, perhaps especially including those by Disney), a majority of them focus on white, American characters. Few films focus on hispanic ones. Recently, only three examples come to mind, Coco, The Book of Life (Jorge R. Gutiérrez, 2014), and Turbo (David Soren, 2013). Of the three, only is The Book is Life directed by a latino animator; the other two are white men: Lee Unkrich is from Ohio and David Soren is Canadian.

The second point discusses that the companies who make these films and television shows are not from the communities they are trying to represent and thus take no steps to create a faithful cultural representation. In “Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros: The Representation of Latin America in Disney’s ‘Good Neighbor’ Films,” Karen S. Goldman talks about Disney creating representations of Latin America that exhibit inaccuracy. She observes, “while Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros were commissioned, in part, to dispel negative stereotyping of Latin Americans in Hollywood cinema, lose analysis reveals that the films actually promote other, no less inaccurate stereotypes, and, in particular, underscore the longstanding unequal relationship between the U.S. and Latin America. They continue to depict the flow of cultural texts from north to south as natural and unequivocal” (25).

Within Coco, contradictory readings can be found. First and most obviously, it appears to be a celebration of Mexican culture. The film opens to introduce the audience to Coco’s family. A likable family that seems realistic, close-knit, and loving. The film introduces us to Mexican culture, including the Day of the Dead, Mexican music, art, beliefs, and value systems. They are a hard-working family of shoemakers. This pushes back against the harmful stereotype that Mexicans are lazy and criminals.

However, although the film welcomes us into this enticing world filled with a good, caring family; it certainly acts to Other the characters. The mythology and customs of the Day of the Dead take on extreme supernatural qualities. It deals with many of the real life customs, as described in Jan Thompson’s documentary film, Food for the Ancestors (1999), about the food customs around the holiday. However, Coco makes these beliefs and customs fantastical, which suggests that Mexicans are primitive people who subscribe to new age belief systems, beyond the rational world.To address the third point: Coco hybridizes its main character, Miguel. When he enters the land of the dead in order to find who he believes to be his ancestor, Hèctor (who amusingly enough is his actual great-grandfather) paints his face so that he looks more like a skeleton, allowing him to fit in. However, this act could also be read as making him appear more white and more Anglo-American. Hèctor paints Miguel’s face white with black rings around his eyes to make him look like a skeleton — or to make him white, and appealing to more audiences. Because, at this point, we have been introduced to him as a latino character in his own culture (this grabs the latino/a audience); by converting him to a white character, it then allows the white children to also identify with him and his quest.

              Miguel before his face is painted

After his face is painted

Coco, then, tries very hard to respect Mexican culture, representation, and talent — through its depictions and people involved in the project (production and talent). However, it still finds ways to reach out and include the white, American audience because at the end of the day, Disney/Pixar are companies out to make money and the more people you can reach, the more profit at the box office.

COLOR THEM BLACK (Adilifu Nama)

Nama makes two very important key points near the beginning of the article. The first of the key points occurs when Nama’s talking about the author Junot Diaz’s childhood identification with Marvel’s The X-Men. Nama says, “because the group were mutants and were treated as social outcasts, as a young Dominican immigrant, Diaz felt an affinity for the characters due to his own marginalized racial status that stigmatized him as an outsider to mainstream America. Diaz’s experience speaks to the power of superheroes to deliver ideas about American race relations that stand outside of strict notions of authorial intent and draconian concerns about white superheroes (or black ones, for that matter) depositing negative notions about one’s racial identity into the reader or viewer” (pages aren’t marked, page 3 of the chapter). This speaks to me personally, not about race (so I won’t talk about it very long, as I understand this week is about race), because I, myself have an affinity for a comic book character because of parallels between the comic book (/film) representations and my real life. I have an extreme affinity for and empathy for the Marvel villain Loki. In the MCU, Loki is adopted and has a complex and problematic relationship with his family. I am adopted and have an extremely problematic relationship with one side of my family (stemming from my being adopted, actually). It’s important that Nama notes that feeling marginalized or otherwise Othered in some way in your real life can lead to negative identifications with fictional characters in the media consumed.

Secondly, of the 60s and 70s, Nama says, “[d]uring this period the bright line between the popular and the political was obliterated as American pop culture began to shred its escapist impulses and boldly engage the racial tensions that America was experiencing. For example, James Brown’s song ‘Say it Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud (1968) did double duty as a dance hit and a racial anthem of uplift and self-esteem” (again, pages aren’t marked, but still on page 3 of the chapter). I believe this spirit cycled around with the release of Black Panther (Ryan Coogler, 2018), which is my chosen media for this week.

Here’s the trailer on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjDjIWPwcPU

I say this because with it, Marvel didn’t simply tell the same old origin story, as it is accused of doing in many of they’re movies; but it turned to politics. Black Panther is about race, it’s about colonialism, it’s about cultural appropriation — it is a complex movie about many political topics. This is relevant to a class on animation because Black Panther started as a comic, and does have many animated aspects in the film as well, although largely filmed as live-action.

Ultimately, it comes back around to representation. It is important for everyone to find images in media that they can positively and realistically identify with. Representations that are not built upon negative stereotypes that harm the communities that are being represented. Also, these comics (and film adaptations) provide a counter-cultural subversion that pushes back against systematic racism in order to offer a stronger element of social justice.

BLACKNESS, BAYOUS and GUMBO (SARAH E. TURNER)*

Was discussed in my previous blog post. 

The chapters by Willetts and Goldman in Diversity in Disney Films discuss racism. The opening of Willetts’ chapter says begins: “[t]here is little doubt that for the young and young at heart, Disney is synonymous with magic and fantasy, a wish factory if you will. It is an alternate universe that operates at the pleasure of young children, centering their world view, creating a place where animals speak, one never grows old and the possibility of becoming a prince or princess seems far more attainable than becoming a scientist or teacher” (9). Of course, the rest of the chapter is dedicated to emphasizing that this wish factory is for only certain children — white (middle and upper class) children. Also discouraging is that which goes unanalyzed: the idea that it is easier to become a princess than a scientist.

Willetts goes on to describe how Disney portrays its racism — often characterizing African Americans as primate-like creatures, such as through statements such as: “[i]rrespective of the manner of portrayal the intent was the same: to illustrate the differences between the races, thereby validating the notion of Africana people as direct descendants of ‘the missing link,’ more closely related to primates in ancestry, appearance and behavior than humans (Europeans)” (10). Depictions often set black and white characters into opposing depictions — whites were “good, pretty, [and] intellectual” while black people were “bad, ugly, [and] emotional.”

Above, is my  chosen media for the week. I chose it because it directly engages the concepts of the readings for the week. This cartoon is from September 10. It is a cartoon drawn by an Australian artist, depicting Serena Williams’ breakdown at the US Open. This cartoon immediately went viral and the artist’s response was that it had nothing to do with race or gender; yet, anyone looking at it can obviously see the cartoon is very much about both. It particularly deals with the concepts Willetts addresses in “Cannibals and Coons: Blackness in the Early Days of Walt Disney.” Serena’s features are featured exactly in the terms specified in the chapter. She is depicted as “bad, ugly, emotional, [and] savage” (11). Her features in the cartoon make her appear more ape-like than human. The cartoonist exaggerates her features, making her appear more masculine than feminine. She is drawn ugly. Her behavior in the cartoon is coded as bad, emotional, and savage. In the cartoon, she is having a full-blown tantrum; whereby she’s jumping up and down into the air while screaming after breaking her racquet. While her white opponent is drawn to appear like an actual human being and in complete opposition to how Serena is drawn. She’s thin, blonde, and has appropriately drawn features. Her opponent is standing still, calmly speaking to the line judge.

Goldman’s chapter on Disney’s “Good Neighbor” films discusses how these films were produced in order to bridge international relations. However, in reality they followed and further forwarded stereotypes of Latin America that continue on into contemporary animation.

Sammond’s chapter on race in animation talks about the white-black racism in early cartoon shorts. The most interesting exploration in the chapter are the bits involving minstrel characters, the most well known and most talked about example being Mickey Mouse.

Finally, Turner’s chapter “Blackness, Bayous and Gumbo: Encoding and Decoding Race in a Colorblind World” uses Stuart Hall’s work to discuss the opposing readings of The Princess and the Frog. In her chapter, Turner explains that the film was the first to feature black characters since the extremely controversial Song of the South. The article ends by saying that The Princess and the Frog was in a situation where it couldn’t win. That is, “[f]or some it will be too Black, for others not Black enough” (94). I tend to wonder if it would have been placed in this can’t win situation if Disney had incorporated more diverse characters throughout its history of films.

ANIMATING RACISIM (Brian Behnken)

For me this entire article makes me completely reconsider the media of my childhood. As a child, I loved watching Tom and Jerry, Popeye, Speedy Gonzales, and Merry Melodies. Upon reflecting back on some of these as I was reading this article, I realize how immensely racist they were — they would replay many of the animated shorts from the 1940s and 1950s during the 1980s. It would appear that at this time, anyone that wasn’t a white male (like the creators) were viewed as other and depicted that way in their cartoons. A particularly shocking part of the reading occurs on pages 87-88, when he describes the shorts attempting to make the horrors of the KKK humorous.

Silly Symphonies [Egyptian Melodies]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1j7uhwDGsc&t=104s

Mickey in Arabia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkYCMMXiqhw

The two above Disney shorts are engaged with the othering discussed in the Animating Racism chapter. The shorts other both groups of people by parodying the stereotypical aspects of their culture that Western people think of. A couple examples of this are by associating Egypt with mummies and Arabia with jars and snakes. The short Mickey in Arabia also deals with issues of orientalism as discussed in Leslie Felperin’s chapter on Aladdin.

The Siamese Cat Song [from Lady and the Tramp]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly_vxI4nllA

The representation of the asian siamese cats in Lady and the Tramp follow the same offensive stereotypes outlines by Behnken. They feature slanted eyes, over the top accents, and are portrayed as being shifty and mischievous. Also, their song features the sounds of gongs and stereotypical asian instrumental music.

The stereotypical, racist representation follows along with Behnken’s article as in addition to slanted eyes, the asian cats are drawn with big front teeth and their whiskers function as a pseudo-fu manchu mustache. Dare I say the coloring of the cats seem to be tinted yellow, presenting an example of subtle yellow-face.

RESURFACED MIKE PENCE OPINION PIECE ABOUT MULAN…. (Jonna Ivin-Patton)

This short article is ridiculous for so many reasons. Well, the article itself isn’t the ridiculous thing, the statements made from Pence are. From what I know about Pence through the last presidential election and the news coverage of his VP endeavors, the level of short-sightedness and sexism evident in his statement shouldn’t surprise me, but it staggers me all the same. He says, “[h]ousing in close quarters, young men and women (in some cases married to non-military personnel) at the height of their physical and sexual potential is the height of stupidity…. Put together, in close quarters, for long periods of time, and things will get interesting.” This statement suggests that women (perhaps human beings in general) are similar to animals. As if people have no self control and more absurdly, as if every woman would find every man attractive (and vice versa). His viewpoints on the interactions between the sexes and indeed the capacity of women is extremely outdated.

THE THEIF OF BUENA VISTA (Leslie Felperin)

This article talks about how Aladdin is engaged with orientalism (as defined by Edward Said). That is to say, that Aladdin doesn’t offer a representation of the orient as it exists, but as the occident (the West) has assigned to it. In order to keep them as other (and thus inferior to Western ways, ideals, beliefs, etc.) the West represents the orient as a magical wonderland instead of a land of reason. Again, I found something that shocked me. I was surprised to read that the sources that the Disney designers turned to while producing Aladdin came mostly from the West. If you were going to portray a culture in a movie, wouldn’t you turn to what that culture says about itself instead of what the West says it is?