What Do you Really See in Disney?
When you think of childhood memories around the world, one of the most prominent components is that of many Disney cartoon classics. The classics range from Little Mermaid to Aladdin, and it marks the beginning of your imaginative, yet innocent mindset, or so we thought. Ever since I was a child, I have always been a major lover of Disney animations. Children today value them also value them highly, but what truly are the motives behind them? Are they really what we think they are, or has Disney been hiding subliminal messages in our adolescent’s favorite movies? And if so how does this subliminal message change our view of our childhood favorites, if so at all?
In the past decade, many families have begun to reanalyze their feelings for certain Disney movies, as well as Disney as a corporation. Criticism of Disney has appeared on many occasions including in the instances of movies like; Pocahontas, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but that was only the beginning. Disney classics like the Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and the Lion King have since been placed under the spotlight, and in the “hot seat.” Organizations such as The America League (ALL), who claim over 300,000 supporters nationally, have publicly voiced their opinion about the ridiculous nature of Disney movies; The Lion King (1994), The Little Mermaid (1989), and Aladdin (1992) (Ostman 82).Speculations of the classics include; the spelling of sex in the air with the dirt in The Lion King, the murmuring of Aladdin telling Jasmine “Take off your clothes,” and the what seems to be the worst one of all where the officiator at a wedding has an erection, and the penis shaped castles all found in The Little Mermaid.
Disney has always been known for its “wholesome” image (Ostman 83). From the very beginning conservative views have always swirled around the Disney Corporation, and as a result clean material was always presented and exhibited. He was always very concerned about how exactly his cartoons were viewed, so he insisted on not putting violence in his publications. Disney’s conservative views were obviously pushed upon his employees; one once said “If we have Mickey kicking someone in the pants, we get a million letters from mothers scolding us for giving their kids the wrong ideas” (Ostman 83). With such conservative views “There can be no doubt that the “old” Disney organization was opposed adamantly to any sexual suggestiveness in their product’s messages” Sexual messages in children’s movies were wrong anyway, and Disney did not chance their popularity with Americans, they knew that the most effective way to continue a smooth running business, and they did so by maintaining their very clean, appropriate and wholesome image.
The “New” Disney however is where critics have the problems, cases such as the nephew of Anna Runge who was only four years old was able to adamantly pick out the letters “S.E.X” being spelled out in the sky in the Lion King, as well as other small children around him (Ostman 83). This surge of the subliminal messages has caused a media uproar. Even though “Conservative pressure on the Walt Disney Company is not new, although the mass media may no longer take the alarms as seriously,” the question still remains why. Some believe that it is the “Disgruntled Employees Theory” which insists that because of Disney ridiculous “moody and sometime psychologically cruel” that the artist decided to seek revenge on him, and what better way than what he valued most, his work! (Ostman 84) But once again the question occurs, how exactly did such revengeful tactics able to get pass authoritarians who checked on works before they were published?
Disney, however has not gone without speaking out on what they believe are ridiculous interpretations of their work. “It’s strictly a rumor started at a radio station… It’s very sad that something like this has spread,” said by Elaine Viets. And as most people were wondering as well, “Why would we do something like this?” (Viets.) The motive behind this theory is still unclear, except for those pending in relation to the “Disgruntled employee theory.” Viets says that “If you want, you can find something phallic. If you want to see the tower as something other than what it is, you’re going to.” Also, Rick Rhodes replied to such allegations “If someone is seeing something, that’s their perception. There’s nothing there!” He went on to say “It’s just ridiculous to think that we’d put out a movie containing something less than a wholesome image.” The concept in which these Disney executives are true in a sense, your perception is all you can build off of.
Despite all of the many arguments brought up about this topic, the importance of the discussion never seems to be clear. How does knowing that there are inappropriate messages in our favorite childhood movies effect how we see them? Personally, I can honestly say it doesn’t truly affect my perspective on them. As a child you are focused on all the brilliant lights, the catchy songs, and this fantasy world that you were able to escape to when you popped that VHS in, or more recently that DVD. The “discovery” of these subliminal messages do not affect the people in which the product is targeted for which are the children. In order to decode the mystery you have to; be looking for it, and having prior knowledge in order to process the negativity, a trait and ability in which children have not yet developed. I do not condone, nor do I believe it is acceptable to have sexually explicit subliminal messages in children’s movies; however they are truly not affecting anyone. So it may just be one of those things better left alone. Let children enjoy their favorite Disney animation as you had the opportunity. In this sense ignorance is bliss, it’s part of being a child: oblivious, free-willed, and carefree!
Work Cited
Ostman, R. 1996.proquest.umi.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/pqdlink? . Disney and it’s conservative critics: Images versus realities. Journal of Popular Film and Television. 24(2). 82.
Ashanta Woodard 