Disneyentalism
Ever since the release of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937,
it seems like there is no childhood without Disney. Because Disney mainly
targets children in their most formative years, it probably influences the
shaping of their values and understanding of the world more than we like to
admit. The power and capacity Disney has to shape worlds and idea’s is an
interesting topic for further investigation in relation to the concept of
Orientalism, which supposedly shapes one’s perceptions of the stranger or the
Other. In order to examine this further, this essay attempts to explore
examples of Orientalism in three Disney films: The Jungle Book, Aladdin and
Mulan.
First of all, a quick
definition of Orientalism is in order. Bearing in mind Edward Said’s book
Orientalism (1978), one could say that it is a created body of knowledge and
practice about what the Orient, in essence, is. Although this is partly based
on empirical knowledge, most of it is a product of the imagination; a tool with
which European culture was able to both control and produce the Orient on many
levels during the post-Enlightenment period. Orientalism is nothing without
stereotypes, which are needed to produce a convincing picture of the Other.
This not only helps us to distance ourselves from him, but also to define
ourselves.
The Jungle Book, originally written by Rudyard Kipling, gives a good example of the
creativity that is an essential feature of Orientalism. Both the book and film
show the need of imperial nations, in this case the English, to create their
own false accounts of the Orient; a way of possessing the culture of their
colonized subjects. For imperial nations, the degradation of native cultures
was a way of making themselves look superior and justifying the occupation of
their colonies.
Although the film is full of
carefully constructed visual imagery suggestive of an Indian space (the jungle,
elephants, monkeys, tigers, tropical fruit, a girl carrying a water jug on her
head), “the images and constructions of nation produced stem from an
understanding of Englishness as a site of colonial authority” (Nyman, J., 2001)
as Jopi Nyman mentions in his essay on Kipling’s book. He states that
“different racial and national Others are constructed to promote a particular
version of Englishness, a process that in the case of Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book is embodied in its
imagining of an animal Other that is harnessed to serve the Empire and its
British rulers” (Nyman, J., 2001). Nyman speaks of how representing the native and
colonized people as animals serves the purpose of distancing readers from their
humanity. This seems to work: a picture is sketched of mostly untrustworthy
savages, who would seemingly benefit from order and therefore some sort of
domination. The animals themselves interestingly seem to be divided into two
camps. On the one hand, Baloo, Bagheera and the wolves are responsible (they
take care of Mowgli) and respect the natural boundaries between man and beasts;
they do their best to hide away in the jungle and not interfere with the world
of men. The hypnotizing snake Kaa, the evil tiger Shere Kahn and the ‘mad’
monkey who sings he wants to be like a man, however, don’t respect these
boundaries and possibly symbolize a lack of respect for colonial rule.
Although Mowgli has the
appearance of a native boy, he is superior to the animals. Interestingly
enough, he has an American accent, which seems to be a prerequisite for a movie
hero to be embraced by a Disney audience. Perhaps Mowgli has been Disney-fied, in
order to fit the mould of a heroic (and therefore Western) main character? In
the film, his superiority becomes especially clear when he makes fire in order
to get rid of Shere Kahn. An interesting detail is that the fight between man
and tiger also seems to be laden with symbolism. In Nyman’s article it is
mentioned that “the emphasis on the tiger hunt in Anglo-Indian fiction reflects British-Indian encounters and the tiger is some
enduring spirit of India that the British felt they had failed to subjugate.”
The belief that things get
out of hand in a society without a set of strictly Western norms and
regulations is represented by a group of monkeys Mowgli, Bagheera and Baloo
encounter one day. They are portrayed as a mad group without language, who sing,
dance and like to poke fun at everything. Their ‘kingdom’ has no specific
culture and is completely out of control. Nyman mentions that “Theirs is a
colonial psyche, a maddening, or already maddened, form of identity that
threatens the stability of colonial rule” (Nyman, J., 2001). This possibly
reflects the colonial fear of becoming too much like the other and ‘losing
oneself.’
A final interesting aspect
of the film to look at is the accent the different animals speak with. Although
some accents are American, it is noticeable that many animals also speak with a
British accent; perhaps to emphasize the British stamp that has been placed on
India. A curious detail is that the most dangerous and therefore supposedly the
most threatening animal (to colonial rule) Shere Kahn has the haughtiest, most
upper-class English accent of them all.
Aladdin
is also a film that reflects Western (American) interests in the East. It is
full of stereotypes, many of which seem to have been illogically fused to
create a convincing ‘Disney-picture’ of the Orient. Examples are: revealingly dressed women with a veiled face,
belly-dancers, camels, elephants, Bengal tigers, flying carpets, cobras,
deserts, turbans, pyramids, classical ruins, Allah, the genie and the Chinese
New Year. Rather than accuracy, the correct identification of the audience with
the exotic and ‘the Orient’, whatever that may be, seems to be considered most
important. This adds a fictional layer to the already fictional story told in
the film.
Early on in the article Saving Other Women
from Other Men, the writer Erin Addison mentions that “to acknowledge
rationality and moral complexity in the colonial subject is to complicate those
sexual, cultural, and market places in the same way ours are complicated. Such
an acknowledgement would also sidle us up so close to the subject that we would
have at least have to consider drawing analogies between ourselves and the
colonized” (Addison, E., 1993). There seems to be no risk of identifying too
much with the Other in Aladdin, as
most characters (except for Americanized Aladdin and Jasmine), are heavily
caricaturized. For one thing, abundant hair is a defining feature of all the
men (including the Sultan, Jafar and the Genie. The Genie has a delicately
formed curly black beard and a high pony-tail and both Jafar and the Sultan
have a lot of facial hair. Jafar also has an exaggeratedly formed, distinctly
non-Western nose and a raw temper. The rest of the men depicted (salesmen or
guards) are dirty, aggressive, brutal, toothless, half-clad or have murderous
intentions. Images of this merry lot are what is most likely going to root
itself in the viewers (unconscious) perception of Arab Islam.
In the
essay it is mentioned that “Aladdin’s missionary project replaces Islamic Law,
social codes,and local aristocracy with American individualism, romance, and
the aristocracy of wealth” (Addison, E., 1993). One can observe this in
Jasmine, who wants to escape tradition and follow her own path in life. She
wants to be free to have friends, go where she wants, wear whatever she wants
to wear and marry whomever she wants. Addison interestingly points out that “it
reveals what Americans imagine Arab Muslim women cannot do, but wish to” (Addison,
E., 1993). Jasmine’s portrayal as a woman who wants to be freed from her
current situation could also be interpreted as an American critique of Hijab and Islamic marriage systems
(arranged marriages, polygamy, etc). However, the presented alternative is
romance, which merely allows Jasmine to be married in the accepted American
way. It does not present her with more freedom as a woman or to undertake
different activities. “The reason Jasmine is so important to Aladdin’s ideology,
Addison mentions, is that “we as a culture continue to criticize Islamic gender
codes as a means of generating moral justification for changing Islamic
culture” (Addison, E., 1993). This means we think we have the right to ‘put our
foot in’ and intervene in order to ‘save’ women from another culture from
themselves. By doing this, we are assuming that our values are universal and
that it would be silly for the Other, who is supposedly ‘suffering’ to not
adopt them to their benefit.
The last
Disney film that will be discussed in this essay is Mulan. The Mulan story is based on a popular ballad written
during the NorthernWei Dynasty (386–534 AD). It tells the story of the
legendary 14-year-old girl Mulan who, hiding her gender, volunteers to join the
army in her father’s place. Mulan miraculously survives the 10-year war against
the invaders and fights well, but declines the emperor’s offer of a high
appointment in order to return home to her parents. In an article which
discusses globalization and hybridization in cultural products, the writers
Georgette Wang and Emilie Yueh-yu Yeh mention that the original story
“exemplifies both filial piety and patriotism” (Wang, G., Yueh-Yu Yeh., 2005).
It seems that the Disney version has made a few necessary changes, true to the
Disney brand. First of all, this is observable in Disney’s depiction of the
role of women. As is stated in the essay, “the Chinese story characterizes
Mulan as a quiet and thoughtful girl in the domestic sphere, who attends to
duties such as weaving, the Disney Mulan is sprightly,tomboyish and unfit to be
an ideal wife” (Wang, G., Yueh-Yu Yeh., 2005).
As is
also the case in Aladdin and The Jungle Book, the visual imagery of
the film is an obvious attempt of Disney to create a façade of ‘otherness’ for
the spectator (pagoda’s, willow trees, oriental flowers), as is the oriental
music accompanying it. An interesting detail pointed out in the article is that
the film also seems to glorify “the multiplicity of culture, ethnicity, nation,
gender and race” (Wang, G., Yueh-Yu Yeh., 2005). Examples are brought forward
of the voices who dub the characters, such as African American Eddie Murphy,
Chinese American Ming-na Wen, and a number of Japanese American, Korean
American and Jewish actors in the
supporting
roles.
Individualism
and authenticity seem to be highly praised throughout the film. Rather than
letting your social role define you, the film shows one that it is more
important to ‘Be True to Your Heart’, like the song in the film implies.
Bearing this in mind one can agree with what the writers observe: “the story,
although set in ancient China, is resolutely modern and American” (Wang, G.,
Yueh-Yu Yeh., 2005). China’s in Western eyes not so pleasant past is
represented by the secondary characters of the matchmaker, who tries to keep traditional
femininity in check and the prime minister, who only cares about rules. The
matchmaker is obese and an exaggeratedly rigid character. The prime minister,
on the other hand, is characterized as a tiny, unfit meddler. As is stated in
the essay, “Together, they encapsulate the old outmoded traditions and
practices of feudal China and everything that the modern Disney Mulan is
up against” (Wang, G., Yueh-Yu Yeh., 2005). Loyalty, responsibility of sons and
daughters (Confucian values) and ideal femininity are portrayed as ancient
ideologies, which must be replaced by gender equality and a broader notion of
femininity.
Conclusion
In
conclusion, one can say that there seems to be a trend in Disney movies
portraying ‘distant’ or ‘unknown’ worlds. Keeping in line with Edward Said’s
notion of Orientalism, the Other is otherized as much as possible through
caricaturized characters and (incoherent) stereotypical images, which are
grouped together in order to lend the film an exotic character. At the same
time, Disney seems to press its stamp on films it by providing an image of how
things could change for the better if foreign practices were changed and
adjusted according to Western values.
In the
case of The Jungle Book, most of the ‘otherizing’ has already been done by
Rudyard Kipling against the background of British colonial rule. However, as
has been discussed before, Disney doesn’t miss a chance to capture a story
emphasizing the differences of the Other.
The
Disney films discussed all offer commentary or warnings on the workings of the
others’ society and weave in views of the beneficial alternative, which is in
alignment with Western norms and values. The way in which this commentary is
woven in, is done on so many levels that, as a whole, it is easy to become
immune to it as a spectator. After all, it is probably not on the first viewing
of Aladdin that the view is likely to
understand Jasmine’s feisty attitude as a critique of the role of women is
Islamic societies, or pay attention to the fact that Mowgli has an American
accent. However, after scratching the surface, the Western simultaneous opinion
and creation of the other (and of themselves, in that process), which leaks
through the productions of Disney, is always there. In this way, Disney and
Orientalism aren’t that far from one another.
Sources
Erin Addison, ‘Saving Other Women from Other Men:
Disney's Aladdin’, Camera Obscura, 31 (1993), p 5–25.
Jopi Nyman, ‘Re-Reading Rudyard Kipling’s ‘English’
Heroism: Narrating Nation in The Jungle Book, Orbis Litterarum, 56 (2001), p 205-220
Georgette Wang and Emilie Yueh-Yu Yeh, ‘Globalization
and hybridization in cultural products: The cases of Mulan and Crouching, Tiger
Hidden Dragon’ , International Journal of
Cultural Studies, 175 (2005), p 176-193
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario