Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Tekiel on January 18, 2006, 09:55:35 AM
-
I was just reading the paper this morning and came across a random bit of information.
"101 Dalmations and Peter Pan (Wendy) are the only two Disney cartoon movies where both parents are present and don't die during the movie."
That's rather disturbing. :-/ I'm trying to prove this wrong but nothing comes to mind.
-
I was going to suggest Sleeping Beauty, but I'm not sure if her mom makes an appearance.
-
on the other hand lets look at the Disney cartoons where both parents are present and at least one dies.
All I can think of is Bambi.
-
You have two parents because you need a backup unit in case the first one fails
Disney's just trying to show that.
-
Mulan
-
And yes, Sleeping Beauty, but she is raised by other people so that might not count.
-
Pacha in ENG is happily married with kids. So, no, Kuzco didn't have parents around, but he wouldn't be emperor if he had a dad now, would he?
-
And its less remarkable when you consider that many Disney Classics are based on Fairy Tales where the hero's or heroines typically dont have both parents.
-
Quiet, You. We must blame Disney for societal ills!
-
Well, I am writing a paper this weekend on the ethnocentrism in Aladdin.
Incidentally, we don't know what happened to Jasmin's mother...hmmm.
-
Tiger ate her.
(It's been a few months since I watched it but I think the Sultan says something like "If your mother were alive...")
-
The sultan also says "I don't know where she gets it from. Her mother wasn't nearly so picky."
So maybe there was a reason her mother was eaten by a tiger?
-
Obviously the tiger is picky too--he only eats royalty.
-
Yay! I'd forgotten Mulan and Emporer's New Groove! I think you do see Sleeping Beauty's mother at the beginning, so I'll count that as well. It's nice to know the article was wrong.
-
A lot of stories have kids without parents. It's not just Disney. My theory is that it's for storytelling reasons; it's harder to have children DO anything if they have parents looking over their shoulder. Get rid of the parents and you up the stakes by getting rid of the safety net, and allow kids to do things they couldn't do under supervision. Also, if you don't NEED the parents for the story, it's a good way to cut down on characters.
My mother, on the other hand, is adopted, and believes that Disney is giving a complex to adopted kids. She's written papers on the subject, and thinks that since it's always orphans who are getting into danger in stories, it makes adopted kids assume that their lives are full of danger. Sounds like a lot of unfounded assumptions to me, but don't tell my mother I said so.
-
It has been years since I have seen Mulan, but I was under the impression that you never saw her mother.
-
Trust me, I see Mulan regularly (I have kids...) and you see not only both her parents, but also a grandmother.
-
Yeah, Mulan's mother and grandmother are the ones who set her up for the matchmaker. And I agree with MsFish on the reason there are so many dead parents, especially mothers, in children's fiction. It takes away the gatekeeper, and simplifies storytelling. Much easier than contriving ways to keep the parents out of the way if they're alive, though I think it's much better when the parents are alive. There's so much higher of a percentage of dead parents in children's lit than in the general population. And close behind are the parents who abandoned the children.
-
My mother, on the other hand, is adopted, and believes that Disney is giving a complex to adopted kids. She's written papers on the subject, and thinks that since it's always orphans who are getting into danger in stories, it makes adopted kids assume that their lives are full of danger.
Finally I know the reason why ninja monkeys attack me at every turn!!! It's because I'm adopted and my life is fraught with danger!
In other news, I agree with MsFish. In fact, in one of my YA writing classes one of the first rules was "Get rid of the parents." That doesn't mean that they have to die, per se, but they often have to take a backseat or be gone for some reason so the main character can have his/her own growth and experiences.
-
I learned in a Women's Studies class in high school (and maybe all you students of literature can dispute this) that back in the day, fairy tales were a way to teach children lessons about life and to prepare them for things to come.
For example, back in the day, a higher number of women died in child birth than do today. So there was a good chance that a girl would either marry someone whose wife had died and they would be a stepmother to his children, or they themselves would die before their children were grown. So Cinderella was told to children to prepare them for this situation.
Again I don't know how true this is, but it is an interesting way to think about fairy tales.
-
That's one theory. The other is that it was simply the way life is, so that's what stories were about. It's the age-old "does life reflect art, or art reflect life?" question.
I highly recommend From the Beast to the Blonde on that subject, by the way. Author is Marina Warner.
-
I think that art reflects life and then life reflects art secondly. And then often art reflects the life that reflects the art that was originally based on life.
Ok, I didn't mean that to sound as obtuese as it did...
-
On Fuzzy's point, I've heard several very well-formed arguments stating that modern criminals, and organized crime especially, subconsciously emulate Al Pacino and Robert De Niro and others of that generation simply because they grew up watching their movies.
As regards the parent thing, I've always thought that Roald Dahl was even more "anti-parent" than Disney because his parents aren't just absent, they die horribly in the first chapter. He only has two books where the parents aren't dead (Matilda and The Twits), and in both of those the parents are the villains. Well, there's also Danny, the Champion of the World, but that's a different genre, and he might still be missing a mom.
And yes, I think Fish hit it right on the head: no parents means no safety net, which increases the drama. My YA book has no parents either (in fact, I killed them horribly in the first chapter).
-
Does that make you "anti-parent" like Dahl? ;)
-
in one of my YA writing classes one of the first rules was "Get rid of the parents." That doesn't mean that they have to die, per se, but they often have to take a backseat or be gone for some reason so the main character can have his/her own growth and experiences.
I'm not picking on Chimera here, just the rule. I think this rule is lazy and a reflection of the direction the commies (my universal label for the liberal wackos who do things like try to mainstream homosexual lifestyles through our public school system and imply through tv and movies that if you aren't sexually experienced before you leave high school you're some sort of pervert) are trying to take our society.
In my opinion and experience, stories about children are more interesting and pack more punch when the parents are dealt with realistically rather than just shuffled out of the way. I'm not saying you shouldn't get rid of the parents ever, just that you need to do so in a realistic manner and deal with the problems that leaves the kids with.
Like in Narnia, the kids were separated from their parents for totally realistic reasons. That very thing happened to thousands of children in England. Or all those books that take place over summer vacation with relatives. No problems there.
But then you have all those books about orphans. Not that there aren't orphans, the problem is that it's just a convenient way to get rid of the parents and the book has no echoes of the problems and concerns that actual orphans have. Or you've got books that get rid of the parents not by having them die but just by portraying them as stupid and ineffectual. I hate that. I really enjoy YA books that are about and for kids and teens where the parents are present and act like adults. Not much of that out there though.
And finally, the idea that parents have to be out of the way in order for kids to have "growth and experiences" is another absurd example of the commie mindset. I don't know about y'all but most of my actual growth (and i'm separating growth and raw experience here) while I was growing up was intricately and inextricably tied to my parents.
Why don't more people write about that?
-
Skar's posts always amuse me.
I just want to pick out a couple things here, not because I disagree, on the whole, I think it shows more skill as a writer to keep the parents alive and healthy and find better reasons why they're not right there.
However, the excusing of Narnia seems more than just a little playing favorites. I fail to see why using a historical event to get them out of the picture is any more realistic or "difficult" than making the child an orphan. It doesn't take any more words and isn't any more difficult to write.
in addition, i find it extremely hard to believe that such a phenomenon is any sort of agenda, consciously or unconsciously. I haven't met anyone (and I know some pretty scaribly liberal people) who believe anything similar to "it'd be better if children didn't have to deal with their parents."
-
...most of my actual growth (and i'm separating growth and raw experience here) while I was growing up was intricately and inextricably tied to my parents.
Why don't more people write about that?
Because my parents would never let me fight crime with a magical sword, but they did help me build character by weeding the garden. When it comes time to choosing a book to read, I think I'd go with the crime-fighting ninja orphan than the well-balanced garden-weeder.
-
Part of why I think that rule of getting rid of parents exist is because children don't want to be preached to. Although in real life our parents helps us by giving us advice, teaching us right from wrong, and all that, and that's how we grow, children don't want to read a story about how a child got into danger and the parents or other adults came in and rescued them. They want to feel empowered by reading about children, for example, the Baudelaires, who are able to use their own brains and figure out a way to help themselves. I also think that children have fun reading about children who go on these adventures without parents, and sometimes without any adults, because although they themselves would be scared out of their wits without adult supervision, it's fun to escape into a book where children are able to do it and have an adventure. Children still learn lessons this way, but it comes out in a less preachy way than stories where an adult solves the problem.
I think that stories can work with adults and without, but I don't see anything wrong with taking adults out of the picture, especially if it makes the storyline more believable.
-
I used to daydream that instead of having to live in the apartment with my mom, I got to have the next-door apartment all to myself. It was a safe daydream--she was nearby, but I still had my own space. I think that's what kids like to daydream about, what it would be like to be independent.
But I'm also the kid who daydreamed that her "real" family were the Dukes of Hazzard and that they came to rescue me and we drove off into the sunset in the General Lee.
-
Who *didn't* have that dream?
-
I haven't met anyone (and I know some pretty scaribly liberal people) who believe anything similar to "it'd be better if children didn't have to deal with their parents."
You mean besides the folks who think abortions should be made available to pregnant minors without their parents consent right? Or the folks who have arranged it so that children can be dosed with psychoactive drugs while they're at school without their parent's consent, right? Or the folks who teach elementary school kids how to put on condoms without ever telling their parents...right?
That's a side issue though. Not one I really think we disagree on at any fundamental level.
You're right about Narnia though. I think the thing that really bothers me (don't you love how I use the board to think, instead of doing it before I post?) is when it's painfully clear that the author just didn't want to think about the parents as characters so they made them flat and stupid or simply played the "orphan" card. That's just lazy and the stories don't usually ring true to me.
Children still learn lessons this way, but it comes out in a less preachy way than stories where an adult solves the problem.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought parents should solve all the problems. They certainly didn't in my youth. Things I learned from them helped me but they didn't swoop in with their hand of god glove and make things right. I don't think that should be done in a story either. Having the parents realistically portrayed in a story does not necessitate their solving all the problems for the kids. Nor do I think that stories for kids all need to help the kid "learn lessons."
I'm not saying stories should never be written where the parents are absent. Not at all. The escapist, "read about doing things I'd be scared to do in real life," aspect is very real and also something I enjoy. But I think the "orphan" card and the "parents are so stupid they're useless" card are played way too much.
-
Nor do I think that stories for kids all need to help the kid "learn lessons."
I think the "learning lessons" part is just one part of it. If you want to put it in more palatable terms, I'd substitute "character growth." They can have mentors in stories--and often do--but have to make decisions for themselves. Often, with younger children (i.e., anything younger than teens), they don't do a whole lot of active independent decision-making when a parent is nearby. The parent usually gives them choices, and they have the ability to choose between a limited number of things, rather than the more developed autonomy a teen might have (while still having parents around).
So, the easy way is to get rid of the parents, and then you're all set for adventure. I agree--it's the easy way--but that's the reasoning behind it. I prefer it when there's more of a mentoring going on, with the parent still a character, but perhaps not serving much of a role in the story, to get the same effect. I'd pull up examples, but my mind is all caught up in The Wayward Wizard, and Sindri Suncatcher's parents let him go on wanderlust long ago.
-
meh... the orphan card doesnt bug me much. As an adopted child I often had fantasies that my parents were A.) not my real parents or B.) going to one day dissapear. I think the idea of daydreaming aboutnot having a parent is kind of an outshoot of childhood and growing. Kind of a set up for later on in life.
Skar, having an orphan child is actually less common in fairy tales and fiction than having just one parent. The idea is that one parent just cant cope and because of that things get out of control. When you consider that many of these stories feature children who are really young men and women at the cusp of adulthood the parent usually only serves to push the child out the door often with some last advice that the children ignore. Its a remarkably realistic and modern lesson in many ways especially when you consider the number of single parent families there are in the world today. And lets not forget all those wicked stepmother stories ... Like Hansel and Gretel and Snow White where the new parent is a problem in the family. Writing like that is usually only lazy when its really lazy. That sounds like a bit of a cop out, but lets face it, good writers can turn cliches into gold 99 percent of the time and not have it get old. Its the bad writers we have to worry about; fortunately they usually muck up a story worse than just the death of a characters parents would do by the shear force of their own writing.
But it bugs me when people feel like they have to attack liberal people when it comes to families. In my experience political values and family values have very little to do with one another, in spite of much gnashing of the teeth and rhetoric... I have know extremely liberal families (almost anarchist in political leanings) with a strong sense of family values and responsibility and some very conservative families in dire straights due to their weak sense of family values. No one side owns a monopoly on family values all rhetoric to the contrary.
anyway, I sense Skar is gonna blow up at this post, so this will be my last one on this thread.
-
Okay, I know this is off topic, but how many people around here are adopted or know someone adopted? Because as I recall at least a couple people on here said they were adopted, plus I believe Fish said her mom was adopted, and my husband was adopted. I just think that is an high amount since in real life, I only know my husband. Maybe it's more common than I thought!
-
how many people around here ... know someone adopted?
I have two cousins who were adopted, plus a good friend in college, plus one of the boys in the cub scout den I teach, plus another good friend from college adopted two kids.
-
Well, Jeffe, whom I've known since high school.
Plus a cousin and both my nephews. My wife's best friend, too.
-
I guess you could say I'm half-adopted. My mom divorced my (deadbeat) biological father just after I was born. Never knew him and don't particularly want to.
Aaanyway, she got remarried when I was 4 and Alan Bylund has been my dad ever since. :)
-
I think the gateway to my great series of life adventures (read all about them in my upcoming book/ RPG campaign "The Adventures of Mad Dr. Jeffe The Unvanquished") was my adoption, and then my parents subsequent divorce in highschool. So there you go,... no family stability = Adventure.
-
Yeah, maybe the moral of the story is that The Cleavers are way more boring than the Simpsons. Bart's adventures leave Beaver's looking mighty hum-drum. Not to say that I'd wish a kid like Bart on any parent, of course... ;)
-
I don't get it: both the Simpsons and the Cleavers are solid nuclear families with both biological parents. How does that relate?
-
Uh, you're right. The connection is a tenuous one. oops.
I guess I was keying off on Jeffe's mention of "stability"--and by extension, dysfunctional families like the Simpsons vs. uber-perfect, idyllic families like the Cleavers in terms of gauging the potential for adventurous exploits. That's all. So I kinda got sidetracked in my comparison, leaving the orphan factor out of the equation. :-/
-
anyway, I sense Skar is gonna blow up at this post, so this will be my last one on this thread.
Your sense was wrong. You made a point and it was internally consistent and was obviously based on actually reading my post. I don't blow up in those cases. I try not to blow up in any case.
The stories where the young people are actually young people on the cusp of adulthood, and the story is about them crossing the threshold, are not the ones we're talking about. At least not the ones I'm talking about. The stories I'm talking about are the ones where the parents would normally be present but aren't because the writers either have a transparent political agenda aimed at undermining "traditional" values or they're just lazy. The crux of my statement is I think there's too much of that offhanded dismissal of parents in mainstream media: books, television, and movies. And it bugs me.
As for liberals and families it all comes down to how you define liberals. I was perhaps too broad with my brush strokes. All the examples I gave are things that come from the commonly labeled "liberal" side of the aisle and they all are functions of the idea that the liberals know how to raise your kids better than you do, which is cutting the kids loose from the parents.
I'm not trying to say that no liberals have family values. Just that the forces and ideas fighting against the family mostly come from the "liberal" camp.
And to tie this back into the parents being absent from stories topic... I find stories that reflect real life in the underlying details more fulfilling and interesting than those that don't. And the fact remains that most kids grow up in two parent households. That's changing but I think it's bad that it's changing and that it's a direct result of cultural conditioning against the values that keep families together and the parents responsible for the children. The values that undermine families are coming from the same folks who preach the three things I listed in my last post. That's how the two things tie together.
Sorry if I've offended anyone. Really sorry I've developed a reputation for blowing up. I hope I'm getting better at not.
-
I find it hilarious when Republicans and other conservatives claim that the Democrats or liberals are the ones who say they know more about how to live your life than you do.
-
But these are the stories that Disney is using... Stories where children cross that cusp. Sleeping Beauty isnt going back to being a girl, and neither is Snow White. The resolution of the story is them moving on into a new role in life, adulthood or Womanhood. The same is true of just about every Disney film ever made, except Pinnochio (though one could argue) Even Dumbo grows up.
I dont think you and I have read the same stories either, because I would say your scenario is the exception rather than the rule.
-
Given that the entire plot of Pinnochio revolves around him trying to prove himself and advance to a higher state of responsibility and "being," I'm going to count it as a coming of age story as well.
-
...hence my one could argue line.
But back to the Simpsons and Cleavers. Neither is the type of story or family we're discussing because there is no growth for any of the characters. Both are effectively morality plays and not full blown stories.
-
I find it hilarious when Republicans and other conservatives claim that the Democrats or liberals are the ones who say they know more about how to live your life than you do.
And I find it hilarious when liberals and or democrats say statements are hilarious without actually responding to a single point that was made.
-
But these are the stories that Disney is using... Stories where children cross that cusp. Sleeping Beauty isnt going back to being a girl, and neither is Snow White. The resolution of the story is them moving on into a new role in life, adulthood or Womanhood. The same is true of just about every Disney film ever made, except Pinnochio (though one could argue) Even Dumbo grows up.
I dont think you and I have read the same stories either, because I would say your scenario is the exception rather than the rule.
Perhaps we have read different stories. In fact that's not only possible but likely.
About the only Disney film I can remember wherein the parents are not one-dimensionally stupid, mean or absent, is Mulan. And you could make a case for the mother being portrayed as flatly mean because of the whole arranged marriage thing.
-
What about 101 Dalmatians? Pongo and Perdy are active, developed, concerned, and heroic. Of course, they're also the main characters, so it's kind of different.
-
I think it is different, and if you put the humans in the parental role they're so stupid and ineffectual as to be inconsequential.
-
While they're not the main focus of the story, Pancha and his wife (from Emperor's New Groove) are both very kind and good parents, and they have a very strong and happy family life...and they kind of take Kuzco in and show him how families and lives should be, I think.
-
And I find it hilarious when liberals and or democrats say statements are hilarious without actually responding to a single point that was made.
a) I am neither liberal nor democrat. On the whole I am very conservative.
b) I felt the statement was so blanket misdirectional, condescending, and ridden with problems that a more specific answer wasn't called for
c) I'll give you a for instance why I think that's hilarious. The main reason is that I've only heard it from conservatives, and I've heard it frequently. And the truth is, they have no more a sense of everybody else is living the wrong way than the conservatives do.
Without announcing my specific point of view, let me mention some issues. I don't intend to debate these issues, and probably, in the majority of the cases, I suspect I agree with you, Skar, though from what I've read, for vastly different reasons.
1) Abortion
2) Homosexual rights
3) Current National security policy and practice
4) School board policy toward religion
In all these cases, there is a *very* strong argument that it is the Republican party and their conservative supporters that are being much more controlling. They want to establish laws to inhibit the exercise of free choice. Rightly so in many cases. But it is still them telling the public what to do.
My point is, that "they're trying to CONTROL YOU!" is a silly way to portray the other side. It really doesn't mean anything politically, it's simply a fear mongering tactic that many people who've given to me take so seriously they can't see what they're doing.
-
But back to the Simpsons and Cleavers. Neither is the type of story or family we're discussing because there is no growth for any of the characters.
Yeah, I goofed. I blame the ninja monkeys that chased me across 10 states on my drive back to Boston. They're relentless. Relentless, I tell you! In fact, I think they had something to do with the parking ticket I got in D.C. >:(
So . . . perhaps I can redeem myself by offering an example of a Disney (live action-cartoon) movie where the parents are (somewhat) present and don't die in the film:
Mary Poppins. She's a lively, supercalifragilistic nanny who arrives on the scene to rescue the kids from a pack of mean old nannies as well as a high-strung mum and a strict, emotionally distant, workaholic dad. What's cool is that Poppins helps them see the need for responsibility by making it fun and imaginative. (The whole spoonful of sugar tactic.)
She takes them on fantastic field trips that challenge them in positive ways. Although the kids aren't orphans, their parents are naturally and noticeably absent during these trips. That's essentially what a nanny is for, after all, to take over the parenting for however long they're paid to do so. That makes her job a very practical and realistic method of getting rid of the parents for many portions of the film.
Sure, like other Disney parents, the dad stands as a roadblock to all this "nonsense." BUT, by the end of the film, he's grown a backbone (by standing up to his boss about his kid's savings) and, more importantly, he's eager to spend real quality time with his kids. Even the mom seems more "balanced". All in all, I feel like this film kind of has the best of both worlds because both the kids and the parents change for the better. That's right--kites for everyone!! (http://angam.ang.univie.ac.at/class/ko/mary%20poppins-class/The%20Banks%20flying%20a%20kite.jpg) :)
EDIT: P.S. I know this doesn't qualify as one of Disney's "cartoons," but I brought it up because it does have a mixture of animation and live action.
-
b) I felt the statement was so blanket misdirectional, condescending, and ridden with problems that a more specific answer wasn't called for.
How condescending and misdirectional. I'm sure you could, you just choose not to, respond to the actual points.
c) I'll give you a for instance why I think that's hilarious. The main reason is that I've only heard it from conservatives, and I've heard it frequently. And the truth is, they have no more a sense of everybody else is living the wrong way than the conservatives do.
My reason that it's hilarious is that the lack of response to any actual statement or point is so typical. It's the equivalent of "nu'uh." Conservatives are not attempting to dictate what can and cannot be said in public forums when it comes to personal religious beliefs. Conservatives are not trying to dictate, over the vociferous objections of taxpaying parents, what children will be taught in school. Conservatives are not trying to force taxpaying citizens to support a vast, illegal, peasant class through dole welfare. Conservatives are not trying to delete the right to bear arms from the constitution. All those initiatives belong to the other camp. And all those initiatives are indicative of the belief that big brother knows best, just let the government handle it, as long as liberals control the government.
Without announcing my specific point of view, let me mention some issues. I don't intend to debate these issues, and probably, in the majority of the cases, I suspect I agree with you, Skar, though from what I've read, for vastly different reasons.
1) Abortion
2) Homosexual rights
3) Current National security policy and practice
4) School board policy toward religion
In all these cases, there is a *very* strong argument that it is the Republican party and their conservative supporters that are being much more controlling. They want to establish laws to inhibit the exercise of free choice. Rightly so in many cases. But it is still them telling the public what to do.
Yet again, no actual response is offered, just a dogmatic mouthing of the PC party line.
My point is, that "they're trying to CONTROL YOU!" is a silly way to portray the other side. It really doesn't mean anything politically, it's simply a fear mongering tactic that many people who've given to me take so seriously they can't see what they're doing.
I'm afraid I disagree. All those cases I've cited are perfect examples of Liberal politician's and activist's desire to tell me and you how to behave in the salient aspect of our lives. You're not allowed to protect yourself with a gun. You're not allowed to let on that you're a christian to your class but if you're a homosexual we expect you to be open about your lifestyle. You shouldn't be allowed to involve yourself in the consequences of your children's bad sexual decisions. You can't be trusted to teach your children about sex or religion so we'll do it, it's good whenever you want it and only for morons, respectively.
It's the defining characteristic of liberal thought. Where a Conservative says, "government stay out of it, it's not your business", a liberal says "we'll use government to force you to act the way we think you should."
This is far afield of the topic this thread was devoted to so I suggest from this point on we either drop it or move the discussion to email. I respect your point of view and am usually edified by your thoughts so I was kind of surprised that you called my viewpoint hilarious with no explanation.
-
Im afraid I disagree with you completely. It would be nice to have a discussion about the topic and not listen to another political diatribe. I think its time to move that part of the conversation out of this thread.
Thanks.
I would like to point out though that your accusing a conservative of being liberal and thats just plain stupid.
-
*sigh*
Just locking for a day... just cause. Thread will re-open.
-
Sigh. I've gone over the line again.
I injected politics into a perfectly reasonable discussion of storytelling and got called "hilarious." I'll shutup now.
-
Uh...we've already gone a bit past this...but to answer Tink's question, I'm adopted. Through LDS social services, when I was six weeks old. My birth mother was young and unmarried and wanted me to have a family and be sealed to my parents in the temple. My older brother is adopted as well, but not my little brother. He's our little miracle--I prayed for three years for a little brother or sister, and finally we got Todd.
When I was growing up, I didn't know anybody else who was adopted. Since I've left home and gone to college I've met more and more adopted people. And I had a Young Woman's leader who adopted a daughter through LDS social services--and she told me it was because she had known me that she felt so comfortable about adoption. That was neat.
-
On the other end, one of my coworkers while I was in Utah became a very dear friend of mine. Although she isn't LDS, she got pregnant at 15 and decided to adopt the baby through LDS social services because she wanted him to be raised in a loving eternal home. That really made a huge, huge impression on me about the kind of person she was.