My lecturer tried to make it bad.... it failed!

[Mike]

man, I'm sure you did your best to call him out, as would any of us I'm sure ^.^

[haggis]

Ok.. having read the posts I thought I should be given the opportunity to bring the point of my seminar to the forum, as you have clearly opened this discussion up to the public sphere in this thread. What you have to understand is the metamorphosis any media text (in this case, The Lion King) takes when it is received by an audience. Put simply, the intended (and good intentioned) theme of the Lion King regarding responsibility and power becomes something completely different when viewed by a diverse and fractured audience. It is imperative to understand that whilst being a family film, the Lion King presents the dynamics of just what Disney considers to be the 'normal' and 'right' family unit; white, heterosexual, and patriarchal. As this is a common theme throughout the Disney canon, it is logical then to observe Disney's ideology as promoting this archaic family unit as the norm and that any other dynamic (gay, black etc) is considered as an unacceptable 'other'. As fans and enthusiasts of the movie you will obviously find it difficult to disassociate yourselves from the text to be able to offer an oppositional reading, but as a media student, KingKivuli, you have to be able to do this. It is essential in ensuring you do well in your undergraduate studies. I am not suggesting that the Lion King is poor film, indeed it has wonderful animation, a good intentioned central message and an enchanting musical score, however all of this becomes secondary when the politics of the movie are examined.

Now to address some inaccuracies in KingKivuli's post -

1. I did not tell you to shut up, I asked you (as a usually vocal and good student) to delay your responses until other students could speak, as you had already informed me of your agenda.

2. The crescent moon was an example of how you could dissect the movie further should you have an agenda that seeks to discredit. I did say that this would be taking it to an extreme.

3. The not caring about lower class issue you make is mis-representing my point. As the dominant class in the United States is white, Christian, patriarchal and heterosexual and the other minority groups form a sub-class to the ruling one they cannot affect ideology and dominant thought as easily. Please do not suggest that I dismissed lower classes as not being important.

It is my job to ensure that students on any of the media courses are fluent in the theoretical techniques of close analysis and understand the notions of ideology, representation, genre and narrative, not to engage in argument that is personal or without academic reasoning. You say I failed? failed to do what? did the seminar make you think in greater detail about the Lion King? if so then that's fantastic, if not.. then yes I have failed. Oh.. and I do have a life.. I have a wife, two fantastic children and a wonderful job that I enjoy immensely.. and I have been to Disneyworld, Orlando three times in the last six years and enjoyed every second of it (I'm just able to acknowledge that their politics suck.. yes my hypocrisy knows no bounds)

oh.. and KingKivuli .. please see me after next week's seminar so we can discuss the extra research I require from you on the topic of forums and the public sphere..

below is a list of source material used to substantiate my seminar presentation.

Tinker Belles and evil queens: the Walt Disney Company from the inside out By Sean Griffin

"The most obvious gay figure in the film is the villainous lion, Scar, voiced by Jeremy Irons, who archly portrays a physically weak male who makes up for his slack of sheer strength with catty remarks and invidious plotting" (Griffin, 2000. p211)

America on film: representing race, class, gender, and sexuality at the movies By Harry M. Benshoff, Sean Griffin

"the film focused on patriarchal privilege by dramatising how a son inherits the right to rule over the land from his father. The film literally "nature" -alises this ideology by making it seem as if this is how real-life animals behave, when in fact female lions play active roles in the social structure of actual prides, a detail the film minimises (and which, by extension, minimises the importance of females in human society" (Benshoff, 2004. p18)

"Other oppositional or negotiated readings noted that the first Disney animated feature to be set in Africa had erased all evidence of human African culture, and employed white musicians to write supposedly "African" music. (This is a good example of the dominant culture industry commodifying and incorporating African style while ignoring the politics of race and nation.)" (Benshoff, 2004. p19)

"Villainy in the film is also linked to stereotypical traits of male homosexuality. The villainous lion Scar is voice by Jeremy Irons with a British lisp and an arch cynicism; the Disney animators drew hima as weak, limp-wristed and with a feminine swish in his walk. Other characters refer to him as "weird", and, in his attempt to usurp the throne for himself, he disdains the concept of the heterosexual family." (ibid)

"Perhaps most disturbingly, the film connects Scar's implied homosexuality with one of the twentieth century's most heinous evils: his musical solo, complete with goose-stepping minions, is suggestive of a Nazi rally" (ibid)

The Lion King: A short history of Disney-fascism by Matt Roth (from Jump Cut, no. 40, March 1996, pp. 15-20)

"Mannered and aristocratic, and clearly not producing heirs like his more manly brother, he is pointedly gay. He is also a rationalist and utilitarian, coveting the absolute power of kingship but not buying into its mystique. He exerts a corrupting influence on the young, skilfully putting all sorts of ideas into Simba's head. Worst of all, he willingly enters into an unholy alliance with the hyenas, a teeming brood of half-starved scavengers ghettoized in a dark region." (Roth, 1996. p15-20)

"The hyenas speak in "street voices" provided by Whoopi Goldberg and Cheech Marin and clearly represent poor blacks and Hispanics. They are also stereotypical gang members, inherently criminal, cutthroat and mercenary … brawling with each other when not united by a common victim. As scavengers whose own neighbourhood offers slim pickings, they eagerly accept handouts. Scar provides them: he gains the hyena's loyalty by promising them a steady stream of meat, thus creating the Welfare State." (ibid)

[Mike]

KK, if you intended to close this before reading here: don't. I think we'd all like to get involved in this discussion, in fact we all posted just about as much earlier.

Now, assuming that you're really Connor's prof (and if you are, you seem to be unlike any prof I've ever encountered. I.e the "oh.. and KingKivuli .. please see me after next week's seminar so we can discuss the extra research I require from you on the topic of forums and the public sphere.." either you're trying to call him out in front of his peers in an embarrassing and inappropriate way, or you're not a real teacher. And defending your personal life to strangers on the internet is a classic sign of begging for attention, or else being totally unfamiliar with the online world) I'd like to respond to some of the things in your post.

First, I see that your case is well cited. That's very good in any work, but as you know, it doesn't mean that the opposite viewpoint doesn't exist or that it's less valid. Presenting the citations as evidence that your take on TLK in the presentation is correct is wrong. Of course, presenting them as support of your conclusion is good, but it doesn't do it on it's own.

Now I'm not sure how far you extended your study, but the evidence for Scar's character being homosexual is fairly flimsy. You've pointed out stereotypical traits that can be found in a thousand other characters across the world of fiction. "Mannered?" a certain british accent? "wierd?" I'm not sure I'd consider these to be indications of homosexual tendencies at all. More important, I would consider, are his actions: such as (in the musical) seeking out Nala as a mate to complete the very "heterosexual famaly" that he supposedly has such disdain for. Furthermore, in the follow up it's revealed that Scar did in fact take a mate and produce children. Again, I'm not sure how deeply you researched the extended Lion King universe.

I could go on, but I don't want to bog down my point, which is this: being a fan of The Lion King might not make me Connor or I the most objective people to deal with the subject, but we're not blind, and we're not stupid. We're capable of thinking about it in a rational way. By the way, whether you're a prof or just Arron doing some research, thanks for posting this. It's nice to talk about the Lion King in a refreshing new way.

[KopsTheTerminator]

[quote="haggis"]Ok.. having read the posts I thought I should be given the opportunity to bring the point of my seminar to the forum, as you have clearly opened this discussion up to the public sphere in this thread. What you have to understand is the metamorphosis any media text (in this case, The Lion King) takes when it is received by an audience. Put simply, the intended (and good intentioned) theme of the Lion King regarding responsibility and power becomes something completely different when viewed by a diverse and fractured audience. It is imperative to understand that whilst being a family film, the Lion King presents the dynamics of just what Disney considers to be the 'normal' and 'right' family unit; white, heterosexual, and patriarchal. As this is a common theme throughout the Disney canon, it is logical then to observe Disney's ideology as promoting this archaic family unit as the norm and that any other dynamic (gay, black etc) is considered as an unacceptable 'other'. As fans and enthusiasts of the movie you will obviously find it difficult to disassociate yourselves from the text to be able to offer an oppositional reading, but as a media student, KingKivuli, you have to be able to do this. It is essential in ensuring you do well in your undergraduate studies. I am not suggesting that the Lion King is poor film, indeed it has wonderful animation, a good intentioned central message and an enchanting musical score, however all of this becomes secondary when the politics of the movie are examined.

Now to address some inaccuracies in KingKivuli's post -

1. I did not tell you to shut up, I asked you (as a usually vocal and good student) to delay your responses until other students could speak, as you had already informed me of your agenda.

2. The crescent moon was an example of how you could dissect the movie further should you have an agenda that seeks to discredit. I did say that this would be taking it to an extreme.

3. The not caring about lower class issue you make is mis-representing my point. As the dominant class in the United States is white, Christian, patriarchal and heterosexual and the other minority groups form a sub-class to the ruling one they cannot affect ideology and dominant thought as easily. Please do not suggest that I dismissed lower classes as not being important.

It is my job to ensure that students on any of the media courses are fluent in the theoretical techniques of close analysis and understand the notions of ideology, representation, genre and narrative, not to engage in argument that is personal or without academic reasoning. You say I failed? failed to do what? did the seminar make you think in greater detail about the Lion King? if so then that's fantastic, if not.. then yes I have failed. Oh.. and I do have a life.. I have a wife, two fantastic children and a wonderful job that I enjoy immensely.. and I have been to Disneyworld, Orlando three times in the last six years and enjoyed every second of it (I'm just able to acknowledge that their politics suck.. yes my hypocrisy knows no bounds)

oh.. and KingKivuli .. please see me after next week's seminar so we can discuss the extra research I require from you on the topic of forums and the public sphere..

below is a list of source material used to substantiate my seminar presentation.

Tinker Belles and evil queens: the Walt Disney Company from the inside out By Sean Griffin

"The most obvious gay figure in the film is the villainous lion, Scar, voiced by Jeremy Irons, who archly portrays a physically weak male who makes up for his slack of sheer strength with catty remarks and invidious plotting" (Griffin, 2000. p211)

America on film: representing race, class, gender, and sexuality at the movies By Harry M. Benshoff, Sean Griffin

"the film focused on patriarchal privilege by dramatising how a son inherits the right to rule over the land from his father. The film literally "nature" -alises this ideology by making it seem as if this is how real-life animals behave, when in fact female lions play active roles in the social structure of actual prides, a detail the film minimises (and which, by extension, minimises the importance of females in human society" (Benshoff, 2004. p18)

"Other oppositional or negotiated readings noted that the first Disney animated feature to be set in Africa had erased all evidence of human African culture, and employed white musicians to write supposedly "African" music. (This is a good example of the dominant culture industry commodifying and incorporating African style while ignoring the politics of race and nation.)" (Benshoff, 2004. p19)

"Villainy in the film is also linked to stereotypical traits of male homosexuality. The villainous lion Scar is voice by Jeremy Irons with a British lisp and an arch cynicism; the Disney animators drew hima as weak, limp-wristed and with a feminine swish in his walk. Other characters refer to him as "weird", and, in his attempt to usurp the throne for himself, he disdains the concept of the heterosexual family." (ibid)

"Perhaps most disturbingly, the film connects Scar's implied homosexuality with one of the twentieth century's most heinous evils: his musical solo, complete with goose-stepping minions, is suggestive of a Nazi rally" (ibid)

The Lion King: A short history of Disney-fascism by Matt Roth (from Jump Cut, no. 40, March 1996, pp. 15-20)

"Mannered and aristocratic, and clearly not producing heirs like his more manly brother, he is pointedly gay. He is also a rationalist and utilitarian, coveting the absolute power of kingship but not buying into its mystique. He exerts a corrupting influence on the young, skilfully putting all sorts of ideas into Simba's head. Worst of all, he willingly enters into an unholy alliance with the hyenas, a teeming brood of half-starved scavengers ghettoized in a dark region." (Roth, 1996. p15-20)

"The hyenas speak in "street voices" provided by Whoopi Goldberg and Cheech Marin and clearly represent poor blacks and Hispanics. They are also stereotypical gang members, inherently criminal, cutthroat and mercenary … brawling with each other when not united by a common victim. As scavengers whose own neighbourhood offers slim pickings, they eagerly accept handouts. Scar provides them: he gains the hyena's loyalty by promising them a steady stream of meat, thus creating the Welfare State." (ibid)[/quote]

lolwut. You joined a TLK forum just to bass TLK? And I don't believe you're really his professor, since you call him KingKivuli instead of his real name. Scar can't be gay, since he has a wife and three children, the youngest one adopted. Also, Zira is white and so are Scar's children. Kovu is black to look like Scar. FAIL

Good job KK. ^_^

[haggis]

The personal side of my post was to emphasise that it is possible to enjoy a subject but to still offer an oppositional reading - i.e. I enjoy Disney movies, I am a regular visitor to Disneyworld, but I am also able to detach myself from my own personal feelings to offer an academic reading. This is essential to any study.

The "see me after the seminar" was a light-hearted response used to re-emphasise the student-teacher dynamic that is essential for a working seminar group and was utilised to counter the personal information I gave. (this is to ensure that I am not thought of as a friend, but as an educator)

As for my argument - in the realm of close analysis, and interpretation, there are no correct or incorrect answers, and my seminar has been criticised openly as some sort of mouth-piece for my far left political agenda, however, I stated categorically, that this is oppositional thought.

I am always open to an academic debate, so please feel free to challenge my argument and that of the Benshoff, Griffin and Roth... If I can just point out however, the background information not accessible through viewing just the Lion King is irrelevant to a study of this kind. Certainly the time line of the musical etc, suggests that they were able to offer a counter to the original movie's connotations, yet this can have no affect on the Lion King as an artefact open to close analysis. It exists as is and no amount of tinkering or revisiting can alter that.

Also.. I called him KingKivuli rather than reveal his real name in case it was not common knowledge.. I have to keep some professionalism!...

seriously though.. I am entitled to respond to criticism of my seminars in the way in which they were criticised.. I've had my say.. now I'll leave and hope that the dedication shown to this site can be transfered to KingKivuli's academic work..

[Mike]

[quote="haggis"]I am always open to an academic debate, so please feel free to challenge my argument and that of the Benshoff, Griffin and Roth... If I can just point out however, the background information not accessible through viewing just the Lion King is irrelevant to a study of this kind. Certainly the time line of the musical etc, suggests that they were able to offer a counter to the original movie's connotations, yet this can have no affect on the Lion King as an artefact open to close analysis. It exists as is and no amount of tinkering or revisiting can alter that.

seriously though.. I am entitled to respond to criticism of my seminars in the way in which they were criticised.. I've had my say.. now I'll leave and hope that the dedication shown to this site can be transfered to KingKivuli's academic work..[/quote]

"Background" information such as sequels and adaptations may not be relevant to your study of the specific movie, but it is critical if you want to analyze The Lion King as a universe, or Disney as a whole, which you've been angling for. If you're going to do either of these things you'll need to accept cannon material that conflicts with your position. Revisiting and "tinkering" brings up new evidence against your position on Disney and the Lion King universe, and contradicts your position and that of the other analysts you cited.

This is expanded upon in other ways as well, including Kovu's acceptance into the pride and the fact that the vilaness of the second movie simply didn't share the characteristics you cite as being characteristic of Disney's portrayal of villains. I'm glad you took the time and trouble to make an account and leave your thoughts. I'd be more than happy to talk this over with you further either in this thread or elsewhere.

[quote="haggis"]As for my argument - in the realm of close analysis, and interpretation, there are no correct or incorrect answers.[/quote]

If you're set on leaving though, I'll leave us with this truth. I understand that there are multiple interpretations to any piece of fiction, as I'm sure you understand that my disagreeing with your presentation doesn't make me any more in the wrong than you are for bringing up your position.

[haggis]

Ok.. so you've suckered me into another post.. what is it exactly you disagree with? Do you agree that by changing the role of the female lions, Disney offers a view that this is the correct way for female family members to behave? i.e. the homemaker?.. Only when the evil (and we are in agreement that Scar is considered evil) Scar is in control do the female lions behave like true lioness', which suggests that only by existing in an 'incorrect' state should women do men's work?

Do you agree also that by creating a 'dark place' for the hyaenas and by utilising African American and Hispanic actors to voice the characters, Disney are presenting a dangerous stereotype of ethnicity?

What concerns me is that Disney are in the business of producing edu-tainment for children and that by association can quite quickly become indoctrinated into the belief that this is the normal and correct way of thinking? I#m not suggesting that this is deliberate, but that it is subconsciously influenced by the dominant culture with the western world - white, patriarchal, heterosexual and Christian..

can you honestly ignore these elements? it doesn't make the Lion King a bad film, it just enhances our understanding of the way in which corporate ideology works.

[SimbasMate]

[quote="haggis"]Ok.. so you've suckered me into another post.. what is it exactly you disagree with? Do you agree that by changing the role of the female lions, Disney offers a view that this is the correct way for female family members to behave? i.e. the homemaker?.. Only when the evil (and we are in agreement that Scar is considered evil) Scar is in control do the female lions behave like true lioness', which suggests that only by existing in an 'incorrect' state should women do men's work?

Do you agree also that by creating a 'dark place' for the hyaenas and by utilising African American and Hispanic actors to voice the characters, Disney are presenting a dangerous stereotype of ethnicity?

What concerns me is that Disney are in the business of producing edu-tainment for children and that by association can quite quickly become indoctrinated into the belief that this is the normal and correct way of thinking? I#m not suggesting that this is deliberate, but that it is subconsciously influenced by the dominant culture with the western world - white, patriarchal, heterosexual and Christian..

can you honestly ignore these elements? it doesn't make the Lion King a bad film, it just enhances our understanding of the way in which corporate ideology works.[/quote]

Okay, I understand what you think, I just disagree with it all. I mean Disney would of never realeased it if they were intending those things.. I love this movie, you can have your own opinon... I just disagree is all.

[Mike]

What exactly do I disagree with? It's mostly the idea that Disney is in the business of edu-taintment to begin with. These elements that you point out are all valid concerns, but I argue that the consistency and pervasiveness of these issues aren't what they're being made out to be.

I would agree that Disney is sending a poor message in the specific film The Lion King by choosing African American/Hispanic voice actors if they were consistent about it, but the fact is that the most righteous and idealized character in the movie, Mufasa, is played by an African American voice actor. Scar also has a British accent, and in spite of the feasibility of the "homosexual trait" argument, a British accent would much more commonly represent a refined culture, and traits commonly associated to this such as honor, the British sense of fair play, ect.

Sure he sounds menacing in the films, he's a villain. But he sounds menacing because he's a villain, and not because of his accent. That, I think, is the important issue. Each character could sound perfectly benign in spite of their accent if they played a different character, as is shown by Mufasa's example.

Can I ignore these elements? Nothing is easier. I could happily watch The Lion King without any such thoughts of discrimination ect entering my mind. I know that this just goes to prove your point about unconscious western bias, but doesn't it also prove my point? That this is just a film, nothing more. It all depends on how you look at it.

[JaguarOne]

Is it just me or are we taking this WAY too seriously? The Lion King was made by Disney for the sole purposes of entertainment, not to spread propaganda and certainly not to be picked apart from what I'm sure are a few coincidental moments in the film (with the exception of the goose-stepping hyenas).

On a separate note, really would like to bring up the idea of professionalism.

[quote]seriously though.. I am entitled to respond to criticism of my seminars in the way in which they were criticised.. I've had my say.. now I'll leave and hope that the dedication shown to this site can be transfered to KingKivuli's academic work.[/quote]

Okay, I don't know about how they handle things in the university in which you lecture, but at The American University, the university which I attend, a student's personal opinion in response to a lecture made anywhere OUTSIDE of class is their own opinion. Using or threatening to use the student's personal opinions made OUTSIDE of the classroom in a manner UNAFFILIATED with the university in a discriminatory manner against that student--something which the wording of your response seems to indicate--is not only EXTREMELY unprofessional, but could get the professor in question fired.

I have no objections to the idea of debating this in a "public sphere"--by all means go ahead. However, I would highly suggest that all statements and expectations made on this site remain on this site and not be "transfered to KingKivuli's academic work" in a discriminatory manner.

I don't know about you, but to hear from a professor that he or she was fired based on the manner in which he or she conducted himself due to an online message board thread--one which is not related to the university in any way, shape or form other than one of the members on said site happened to attend the university--would look very, very bad.