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

[MusicLion101]

@ haggis:

TL;DR

[Panda-chan]

Whoa this is like, so formal LMAO.. My head hurts nao xD

[Simba]

[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.[/quote]

the scene "The Madness of King Scar" from the Broadway was created based on a deleted scene (which did make it to storyboarding process before being thrown out due to the afore mentioned sexual harassment). so yes, the fact that Scar "came on" to Nala, particulary because of her beauty and feminine features, does count in this argument. they cut the scene only because their target audience was small children. I'm not entirely sure, but I do believe it's even mentioned on the video "journies" on the second disk of the DVD, providing just as easy access as the movie itself.

now on the point of Nazis and minimizing the role of females, I do agree. but you should also keep in mind that sticking with the fact that Scar and the hyenas are supposed to be like Nazis also would mean they couldn't be homosexually oriented. aside from the persecution of Jews, Nazis sought out to be rid of other minorities and those that went against their beliefs which includes homosexuals, those of dark skin (another inconsistency), gypsies, etc. And no doubt since the Nazis called themselves Christians, they would've been against Muslims too, due to their not sharing the belief of the "perfect" race, if there had been any noticable population in the region at that time.

now, as to the characters' race you went by the voice actors of Shenzi and Bonzai. which means you would have to do the same with the protagonists as well as the antagonists, making Mufasa and Sarabi black as well.

plus, if this was really Disney's underlying "political" view, why would people who would find such a statement horrendous take such a part in producing it? simply because there is no underlying political tie. is it so hard to believe that people can make something for the good of making it? I think not.

I wish I could provide some citations, but this is only what I have gathered through factual analysis of the movies, social studies, and with a little of my own opinion on that last paragraph. if I had the time, I'd check to see which specific clip that they mentioned the deleted scene with Scar and Nala

[Yumacub]

Woooow that lecturer has NO LIFE!

[WildSimba]

Don't hate me for this, but... I actually find his words quite... interesting.

It's ovious that Disneys figure has always been a bit focused on what they think are "Morally Stable", which is one of the reasons Song Of The South was banned, because Disney thought they it showed black people in an innappropriate, racist, sterotypical form. Since then, they've been leaning more on the "White population" of the world, as not to have a repeat of such a controvesy. In the process though, it's made people think about this in such a way.

From a film makers point of view, white is a symbol for good, and black is a symbol of evil. This is clear, considering all that the pridelanders have lighter skin, and all the outlanders have darker skin. (Even outlanders such as Vitani, although not fully dark, have details of darkness, such as dark rings around her eyes. Although Vitani was fully evil in the first place...)

As for the Nazi thing, this is pretty true. It's also the classic sterotypical vision of war.

A leader is evil. A guy comes like years later and rebels, and overthrows the leader, taking his place. Which is what, how saddam was captured?

The cresent moon I don't understand too much, because... well, I have not researched well on muslims. I would know this.

This is all I can say.

[LadyAnette]

Interesting..................

[Mike]

[quote="WildSimba"]It's ovious that Disneys figure has always been a bit focused on what they think are "Morally Stable", which is one of the reasons Song Of The South was banned, because Disney thought they it showed black people in an innappropriate, racist, sterotypical form. Since then, they've been leaning more on the "White population" of the world, as not to have a repeat of such a controvesy. In the process though, it's made people think about this in such a way.

From a film makers point of view, white is a symbol for good, and black is a symbol of evil. This is clear, considering all that the pridelanders have lighter skin, and all the outlanders have darker skin. (Even outlanders such as Vitani, although not fully dark, have details of darkness, such as dark rings around her eyes. Although Vitani was fully evil in the first place...)[/quote]

I don't think that anyone can argue that there <are> stereotypes and controversies in Disney material, but like I've argued earlier, the consistency just isn't there to suggest that Disney is (consciously or not) tainting the minds of the young. There are examples of characters represented as all sorts of things across many movies, but if we keep the debate to The Lion King as was originally intended, we only need to point out characters like Mufasa, Sarabi, and Rafiki, all of whom are voiced by African/Jamaican Americans.

As for the black/white themes, as was mentioned earlier these have to deal with the theme of light vs dark, which is a theme older than the bible, and doesn't have to have any racial context at all. Outsiders are distinguished in many ways from pridelanders beyond the darkened rings around their eyes. They're more angular in general, they have distinctive noses ect. Not a single outsider is voiced by an African American either. The outsiders are meant to represent the "other" that need to be accepted at the end of the movie. One of the infinitely many examples of "reverse edu-taintment"

[quote="Simba"]now on the point of Nazis and minimizing the role of females, I do agree. but you should also keep in mind that sticking with the fact that Scar and the hyenas are supposed to be like Nazis also would mean they couldn't be homosexually oriented. aside from the persecution of Jews, Nazis sought out to be rid of other minorities and those that went against their beliefs which includes homosexuals, those of dark skin (another inconsistency), gypsies, etc. And no doubt since the Nazis called themselves Christians, they would've been against Muslims too, due to their not sharing the belief of the "perfect" race, if there had been any noticable population in the region at that time.

plus, if this was really Disney's underlying "political" view, why would people who would find such a statement horrendous take such a part in producing it? simply because there is no underlying political tie. is it so hard to believe that people can make something for the good of making it? I think not.[/quote]

Just a few things that I think haggis would point out given the chance, seeing as he's not found time to post yet:
-He's not saying that Scar is a Nazi consistently in the film, just pointing out the clues found in one scene. His argument is about edu-taitment in general, and so one character can represent many things without there actually existing contradictions.

-He's also mentioned that he agrees that these issues are probably completely/mostly unconscious on the part of Disney; Disney isn't intending to be racist, but just letting their world-view (christian/white/patriarchal/heterosexual) unconsciously affect the characteristics of the heroes and villains of the film.




And yea, intelligent debate is pretty wordy lol, but one and two line responses just don't contribute anything useful. Plus this is fun.

[TheBlackCatCrossing]

**Wow, I realize that the last time someone posted was in 2009. I originally found this thread several months ago before I registered. Now that I am a member, let me give it a shot.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, I want to say that I am a little disappointed in reading some of the responses here. One of the reasons why the Lion King still fascinates me as an adult as much as it did as a little kid is because of the little things I did not notice. Also, being a humanities major (class of '09), I think that there is a time and place when one can talk about context and subtext can be discussed, especially if it stems from a very popular animated film. There are universal themes that little kids can understand while at the same time, there are adult elements that I think should be discussed. I studied history and I took a 'media studies' course on my last quarter and discussing the more sensitive/controversial themes about something, I live for it. It is fun noticing the little bits and references. The Lion King made a lot of money not just from its target audience, but because adults enjoyed it as well and I don't doubt that some of what Professor Haggis' viewpoints were discussed between adults over coffee tables and college campuses.

Here are my viewpoints:

Scar and the hyenas representing 'Blacks' and 'Muslims':

I think the climax of "Be prepared" with Scar being outlined by the crescent moon were done for dramatic effect, not because there was some sort of agenda behind it. Think about it. It took place at night. What better way to highlight Scar leading the hyenas than highlighting the crescent moon around him? Now that I think about it, it is a brilliant touch. In a very obtuse sense, it reminds me of "The Last Supper", or rather, it is a 'corruption' of 'The Last Supper' with Scar being in the middle and surrounded by the hyenas. There was a post I read that compared that scene to a dark carnival and I think that described the end of 'Be prepared' very perfectly. The half moon surrounding him highlighted him because the focus was Scar, not the hyenas. I see these little touches as examples of allusion or metaphor, rather than examples of an agenda. For those that don't know, an allusion is a historical/Biblical/mythological reference to something else. You can make references to something without it being the subject or context of whatever it is you are talking about. In this case, I see the crescent moon as nothing more than dramatic effect done for art, not because Disney wanted to show us that Scar represented 'Muslims'.

In addition to that, I don't think Disney wanted to do that because in case you forgot, they actually changed a lyric in "Aladdin", the Disney animated feature film before LK. The original lyric was "Where thet cut off your ear, if they don't like your face" to "Where it is hot and immense, and the heat is intense."

So yeah, if they took the time to edit the film in later features to remove the offensive lyric, then I highly doubt that Scar was used to represent Muslims. I really doubt that that was Disney's agenda.

I look at the Lion King as a piece of art, not a piece of social commentary. Scar having darker colors and a jet black mane are elements in art that show us that he is the villain. The color black is usually associated with 'evil'. Scar's gestures emphasize that he is very different from his brother and the pride. (I will explore this further down below). It is done to separate him from the 'good' characters. This is a classic animated/artistic trope. In a lot of art, the skull represents death. In Europe, it represented 'memento mori', or the eventual coming of death and that was a powerful image for many people who were living during the Renaissance era. Scar having a black mane was done for artistic purposes. And yet, at the same time, I find it to be a funny contradiction because in actual real life prides, black manes are actually seen as a desirable trait to female lions. However, Scar's b****y behavior shows us that he is not a nice character.

Before I continue, I wanted to point out Mike's post. You mention to Prof Haggis that Scar had a mate in the sequels. Sorry mate, but that is misleading. I know some people here ship Scar and Zira and that is perfectly fine but I just wanted to point out that to say that Scar produced heirs in the sequel is very misleading as none of the cubs were shown to be Scar's. We don't even know what relationship Scar had with Zira and the best we have is a facebook cap where the director Rooney said that she originally was written as Scar's mate but then she was made to a follower. I am going by that final product.

The Lion King representing a white/Christian/patriachial POV with the hyenas representing poor blacks and latinos.

Again, I think this was strictly an artistic endeavor than politically/socio-economic but here goes. The lions having pale/cream/gold colors show us that they are good characters. Granted, you should not judge someone based on how they look but this is a Disney movie where the target audiences are children. I have never worked for Disney nor have I worked for any company, but I stress that the looks are mainly done for artistic purposes. Sure, they could have created a lioness who had shady motives but that would have taken them longer. Look at Zira. She has a light colored pelt but looking at her face, we know she is bad. Again, I stress you should not judge someone based on how they look but if you think Disney should take it upon themselves to make everything politically correct, then maybe this isn't the right medium for you.

Disney is a company. They make films. They took natural and human elements and blended them. They took some of what happens in nature (prides, male leads, many females) but incorporated human elements (talking, singing).

Since this was a film based on lions possessing some human characteristics, you cannot expect them to conform to what our notions of a perfect society are. Case in point, the complaints about the female lions not being active. Now granted, I would have liked to have seen more of Sarabi and as a little kid, I was always kind of annoyed that Nala's primary motive was basically for Simba to become King. She was almost secondary. And yet, could anyone here watch the Lion King without the males and not wonder or feel if something was a little 'off'? Can you really picture a feminist utopian society like they have on Themyscira (Wonder Woman's Island before she was sent to the Land of Man) and not question if it was congruent with actual lion society? I would feel a little weirded out. One could argue that the Lion King sequel was an answer to this problem by them having incoporated more active female roles via Kiara and Zira.

Personally, I think it would have been neat if Disney added a scene with the lionesses talking about what a tyrant Scar was and maybe one of them saying 'What about the elephants? They are matrilineal!' but then I could see someone like Sarabi rejecting it because it is not the 'leonine way' or something like that. Disney deviates a lot from the original sources (HOND, Hercules) but I can not see them doing that, realistically. I think if the animators/story board editors took the time to show us how the lionesses functioned while Simba was away, the attacks of it being antifeminist would not have stung as much. I can see why some would make the accusations of it being 'misogynist' but again, Disney was trying to be realistic and a lioness only pride is not that. It doesn't exist. I love the Lion King. It is one of my most cherished films. Is it perfect? No. What gets to me more is emotional appeal. I would have made some changes. Who knows. Maybe in another 10 years when they do another rerelase they will animate something for us, kind of like what they did with 'The Morning Report'.

And finally, Scar as a gay character.

I actually wrote a blog entry about this so let me reiterate/copy and paste.

I admit, this did not cross my mind until earlier this year. I had a huge surge of nostalgia because of the Skybox trading cards I bought. Going back to what I said earlier about not noticing things as a kid versus as a adult, Scar as a possible homosexual character IMO makes for a fascinating case. Now, I know some people here ship Scar and Zira and while that is fine and dandy (no pun intended), we don't actually know what Scar's feelings for Zira were. We don't know if actually loved her. Being a narcissist that he is, I actually doubt that he had feelings for anyone. He killed his own brother, psychologically manipulated his nephew, hit a woman, how in the hell am I supposed to believe that he turns off all those negative impulses for one lioness? Yes, I could see him see her as someone being 'beneficial' FOR HIM. I am more likely to believe that Scar choosing Kovu as an heir was done more out from pragmatic purposes, not because he was in love with the mother. Scar is most of all, a user. Please understand that I am not calling gay men users. I am just saying that Scar being first and foremost a narcissist, I wouldn't put it past him to maybe possibly have mated with Zira so that she could produce a cub. I would still see him as a possible queer character. Again, I want to stress that I am not saying that being gay is bad. I have written slash fanfic before, haha! But in all seriousness, Scar disdains the 'traditional family' role. He is not a family guy like Mufasa or Simba. He did not choose a lioness as soon as he became King so that in itself is suspect.

His hitting on Nala on the Broadway version is intriguing but I still feel that it wasn't a true example of Scar's heterosexuality. This happened under the segment 'The Madness of King Scar'. He was mentally incompetent. If he had chosen Nala as his future Queen while she was still a cub, I would agree but him trying to hit on her while she older and especially when he was losing control of kingdom is something to behold. Again, I see him expressing an "interest" in Nala as more because he wanted cubs and maybe the other lionesses were too old. He cared more about spreading his genes, himself than anyone. I see this as an example of Scar's narcissism rather than concrete evidence of heterosexuality.

He could be bisexual.

Finally, to any of the skeptics out there. I highly suggest you do some google searches to understand that the reading of Scar as a possible homosexual character is not one 'crazy person's' theory but something that has been discussed before?

Need I point to you the Lion King spoof made by Mad Magazine?

Are these concrete examples of Scar's homosexuality? No, but they are strong ones. If they were picked up as early as 1994 and are still discussed you know something is in the stew. Personally, I want to believe that Scar is a gay character but I would like concrete evidence straight from the horse's mouth. I do think he leans a little to the left. He chose not to take a lioness early in his reign, he did not have cubs, he has a swishy walk, etc. You don't have to exlicitly show anything to point to a character, especially a Disney one, to show that he is straight as a circle. Now, you don't have to agree with me. I am just showing y'all what I have found and felt. Even as a little kid after I saw LK 2, I did not see Zira as his mate. I do remember having this weird 'feeling' about Scar, that he was 'different' and yet, I didn't see it as bad. If anything, it made him even more fascinating.

Other strong cases, for me personally, that Scar is possibly gay:

1. He's psychologically manipulative. In comparison to his more manly brother, Scar uses his brains to bully anyone into doing what he wants. Men usually use physical force when they aggressive. Women are more subtle about it.

2. He's jealous as Hell and his body language is unusually expressive in comparison to more stoic and manly Mufasa.

3. I read an interview that mentioned that Jeremy Irons likes characters that are ambiguous. We all know that Scar is plain evil. He is not nuanced. I wonder, what 'ambiguity' did Irons see in Scar?

And finally, who could forget this?



I do think Scar has a little bit of femme in him. Maybe a lot but that is okay. I once read in a forum that a male character possessing 'feminine' traits is actually kind of cool because that doesn't make them any less dangerous. In fact, it makes them even more dangerous.

Okay, I will shut up now. LOL!

[WildSimba]

Please do not bump super old threads from like 2009. Thank you. Locked.