I liked the Lion King more as a metaphor for how despots rise to power in any case. With Scar as mr 18 and his hyena's fulfilling the role of SS, be basically cast out all opposition. The joining of the Pride Lands with hyena country recalls the Anschluss in several ways, and the way the country implodes is because despots tend to leech their country dry.
This was interesting, but a bit cliched.
The personal metamorphosis of Simba was a bit more complex than Nala's 2 lines, where he had to see his own image. Many people have to crawl out under the shadow of their parents, that's not easy. For a Disney movie it's difficult to put more time into it though.
Yes, I know, ultimately, I was just saying that if you were going to criticize Disney movies for consequence free actions by the heroes, I though LK was far more egregious.
As for Hakuna Matata, it's not possible to carry a heavy weight if you don't give yourself time to cast it aside sometimes. Hakuna Matata is the only way to get real important stuff done in life, if only to keep yourself sane. Once you took time to grab yourself together, you are ready to tackle the real challenge, which is exactly what Simba did. And yes, sometimes that takes quite some time. It's not a big deal when you have people who support you through the hard parts, which Timon and Pumba did in the end. That's what friends are for.
It would be cool if it was portrayed that way, but movie heroes being dealt a terrible blow early on and learning to deal with it is a common plot point. It is usually, when done effectively, accompanied by some struggle and if they ignore their problems for too long, it has a material negative effect on the hero. Both of those things are lacking here.
So if you focus on the negatives, yea I understand Lion King can be considered shallow. However if you could only grasp the many different values, references and morals packed into a mere 90 minutes movie it is actually rather deep. Don't forget that this is a family movie which children and adults can watch together with each getting something out of it.
Look, I'm not saying it's a bad movie, just that there are things about it that bug me from a moral point of view, which was what we'd been talking about.
Originally Posted by harniq
It is not black and white. I did enjoy Dan Brown, but it is pulp fiction, which exactly explained his posts complaining all his books are the same despite being page turners. I've read more pulp than I can remember because it's enjoyable and a good time waster. Blade complained because he didn't like the book so I gave him a tip, which goes contrary to the way you interpret my post. You didn't even read Blade's post because you missed blade saying he didn't really like the books.
Which brings me back to Dan Brown. I didn't bring it up to complain about it, but rather to try to bring this discussion about pop culture influence back around to books by mentioning a book that was discussed briefly before I (with some help) shuffled us into an off topic movie discussion.
Also, I didn't say I didn't like it. It wouldn't be a page turner if I didn't like it. But the writing is so bad from a quality point of view, hence the pop culture point. It sounds good but there's not much there, to paraphrase another pop culture love of mine, Les Miserables.
Originally Posted by Rob Van Der Sloot
I'm just commenting on the Disney movie, which is different from the original fairytale.
I'm just commenting on the Disney movie, which is different from the original fairytale.
I'm sorry to hear you fell asleep during this part.
Except of course for the fact that we hardly ever spend a scene alone with the beast (but we do with Belle) and follow Belle throughout the movie. In fact, we never see the Beasts view at all, unless he is in a room with Belle, and the camera briefly lingers with him.
His physical transformation simply means a happy end, and an end to the curse. He already became kind before the ending of the movie, which is why the audience cares for his fate in the first place. And it makes sense, which is also why you are wrong. If the Beast is still the same monster by the time Gaston threatens to kill him, then the audience would feel emotionally distanced. Who cares if the monster dies right? But he stops acting like a monster long before that. How did you miss that?
I'm sorry to hear you don't like people disagreeing with you.
Hey I have an idea. Why don't you cut up your posts in small pieces? That would help make you look incapable of maintaining an argument across a section of flowing text.
Anyway, the Disney movie contain all the important pieces of the fairytale, so the analysis still holds.
The beast repeatedly might have acted as if he perceived himself as a person worthy of love, but it's just that - an act, which is why he sometimes still reverts to, so to speak, beastly action. He can't convince himself, and that is the saddest part of the story. That is also why he appears as a monster even in the end, when we (the audience) no longer sees him as a monster - because he still sees himself as one.
As I said, we follow Belle around, but that doesn't change the fact that everything in the movie is presented in the way that the beast sees them: Belle is beautiful, the servants are mere household tools, the villagers are friendly (towards each other but not towards the beast), and so on. The beast is practically never shown alone because loneliness is what the beast revels in: when he is alone, he does not have to contemplate himself. He has no self-assigned form when alone, and therefore, he isn't shown in the movie alone.
Of course, I don't expect you to admit that there could be other things in a simple cartoon movie than what is directly shown to the audience. I don't expect you to admit that you could ever have missed some subtle metaphor. After all, you are an expert on these kinds of things. You know exactly what you see when you see it, every time. There's no way you could be wrong about any of this. Right?
Anyway, the Disney movie contain all the important pieces of the fairytale, so the analysis still holds.
Hmmm really? I've read the original fairytale. In fact, I've had to read quite many fairytales for my work. And the original fairytale differs quite a big deal from the Disney movie. All the important pieces you say? Well that depends entirely on what you view as important of course. But I'm sure others would love to read the original: Beauty and the Beast
Originally Posted by raspberry jam
The beast repeatedly might have acted as if he perceived himself as a person worthy of love, but it's just that - an act, which is why he sometimes still reverts to, so to speak, beastly action. He can't convince himself, and that is the saddest part of the story. That is also why he appears as a monster even in the end, when we (the audience) no longer sees him as a monster - because he still sees himself as one.
An interesting take on it, but certainly way beyond what the Disney movie was trying to convey. After all, it was aimed at kids. While that analysis might apply to the original fairytale, I'm not convinced that it holds up for the Disney movie.
Originally Posted by raspberry jam
As I said, we follow Belle around,
So she is the main character! Its not that difficult. She even is the main character in the original fairytale (but then her name is Beauty, which means the same thing of course).
Originally Posted by raspberry jam
...but that doesn't change the fact that everything in the movie is presented in the way that the beast sees them: Belle is beautiful, the servants are mere household tools, the villagers are friendly (towards each other but not towards the beast), and so on. The beast is practically never shown alone because loneliness is what the beast revels in: when he is alone, he does not have to contemplate himself. He has no self-assigned form when alone, and therefore, he isn't shown in the movie alone.
-Or, because the movie is a love story, and seeing the Beast alone is not very compelling to watch. He is also not shown alone because he is not the main character. And while you may dive head first into the psychology of the fairytale, a lot of it is simply fancyful modern interpretation. The truth of the matter is, most fairytales aren't that complex. Their message and motives are usually pretty clear and do not have that much depth at all. And Beauty and the Beast, like many fairytales, has gone through many changes over the years. Some versions didn't even include the transformation of the prince... and sometimes he didn't transform until after the wedding night. But one thing all versions have in common: They are about Beauty being selfless and putting aside her own needs, and eventually learning to see beyond physical appearances. It has always been a story about Beauty's character arch, clear and simple.
Don't take it from me, the history of the tale is well documented:
Spoiler
Like Cinderella, the tale of Beauty and the Beast is one of the best known stories in the world. Variants of the tale appear in numerous cultures. Aarne-Thompson classifed the story as "The Search for a Lost Husband" type 425, with "Beauty and the Beast" receiving its own subtype of 425C. This tale type is one of the most extensively studied by scholars which is understandable in part because so many tales fit into the category.
The tale of Cupid and Psyche (AT 425A) is considered by many scholars to be one of the first literary fairy tales. Written by Lucius Apuleius in the second century A.D., he relates the story in his novel, The Golden ***, as an old wives' tale told by an older woman to a young woman who is being held hostage for ransom. The tale features many characters from Greek/Roman mythology, although earlier records of this tale are not known. You can read three versions of the tale on the Tales Similar to Beauty and the Beast Page. The tale is a direct ancestor of the French Beauty and the Beast tale. It bears even closer resemblance to East of the Sun and West of the Moon (AT 425A), another animal bridegroom tale which I have annotated on SurLaLune. Cupid and Psyche was translated into English in 1566 by William Adlington and was well-known throughout Europe. For example, John Milton refers to the story in his Comus, first performed in 1634 and published in 1637.
The first version of Beauty and the Beast appeared in 1740 by Madame Gabrielle de Villeneuve. She wrote a novella length version of the story which appeared in La jeune ameriquaine, et les contes marins. Her audience was not children, but her court and salon friends who enjoyed sharing stories for entertainment. Scholars suppose that Villeneuve derived her story from traditional oral tales and "Le Mouton," a story by another court lady named Madame D'Aulnoy whose home was the site of one of the best known literary salons in that time.
Villeneuve's version contains many little known elements and does not end with the transformation of the Prince. She spends too much time discussing warring between the fairies, the parentage of the protagonists, and the reason for the curse on the Prince. Also, the transformation from beast to prince does not occur until after the wedding night. Villeneuve's version also contains dream sequences in which Beauty is told by the Prince in his true form to look beyond appearances and rescue him. She, of course, does not understand his message and must fall in love with the beast before she comprehends his full message. Note: The best English translation of de Villeneuve's entire story can be found in Jack Zipes' Beauties, Beasts, and Enchantment: Classic French Fairy Tales. This book is out of print, but can usually be found in larger libraries. The story is not available in the paperback edition of the book, Beauty and the Beast and Other Classic French Fairy Tales (Amazon.com link). The shorter version by de Beaumont is available in both editions.
The next version of the tale appeared 16 years later in 1756 by Madame Le Prince de Beaumont. Beaumont considerably shortened Villeneuve's novel into a short story which ends after the Prince is transformed. The extra storylines are omitted. This version is the best well-known and most used as the basis for later interpretations of the tale. Beaumont's version has weak areas, just as Villeneuve's version has. Beaumont assuredly had a younger audience in mind and her story is more didactic, concentrating on Beauty's virtue. She maintains the magical atmosphere well, but her message is clearly that industrious, self-sacrificing young women will find the most happiness just as Beauty does at the end of the story. Also missing are the dream sequences found in Villeneuve's version.
Scholars propose that Beauty and the Beast is a literary tale based on folk tale elements which reentered the folk culture with the literary elements added to it. In this way, the story returned to the oral tradition almost entirely as a brand new story. This gives Beauty and the Beast a considerably different history from many other tales.
The version of the story which I have annotated comes from Andrew Lang's Blue Fairy Book (1889). He attributes his version to de Villeneuve, but his version is actually an interesting mesh of de Beaumont and de Villeneuve. He favors de Villeneuve's elements of the story, but edits out much of the extra dialogue concerning the fairies and genealogies which de Beaumont decided to leave out of her version, too. The dream sequences are intact, however, which I wanted to include in the version I annotated. To read de Beaumont's version, I highly recommend either Jack Zipes' translation of the tale in Beauties, Beasts and Enchantments or D. L. Ashliman's online version at this external link: Beauty and the Beast.
Originally Posted by raspberry jam
Of course, I don't expect you to admit that there could be other things in a simple cartoon movie than what is directly shown to the audience. I don't expect you to admit that you could ever have missed some subtle metaphor. After all, you are an expert on these kinds of things. You know exactly what you see when you see it, every time. There's no way you could be wrong about any of this. Right?
I love discussions, and you sir are simply wrong. Your interpretation is insightful, but it is never the less missplaced. I urge you to read the original fairytale. Beauty and the Beast is about Beauty mostly, and also partially about her father the merchant.
And we're back on topic!
Last edited by Rob Van Der Sloot; 05-07-2012 at 19:53.
Hmmm really? I've read the original fairytale. In fact, I've had to read quite many fairytales for my work. And the original fairytale differs quite a big deal from the Disney movie. All the important pieces you say? Well that depends entirely on what you view as important of course. But I'm sure others would love to read the original: Beauty and the Beast
An interesting take on it, but certainly way beyond what the Disney movie was trying to convey. After all, it was aimed at kids. While that analysis might apply to the original fairytale, I'm not convinced that it holds up for the Disney movie.
So she is the main character! Its not that difficult. She even is the main character in the original fairytale (but then her name is Beauty, which means the same thing of course).
-Or, because the movie is a love story, and seeing the Beast alone is not very compelling to watch. He is also not shown alone because he is not the main character. And while you may dive head first into the psychology of the fairytale, a lot of it is simply fancyful modern interpretation. The truth of the matter is, most fairytales aren't that complex. Their message and motives are usually pretty clear and do not have that much depth at all. And Beauty and the Beast, like many fairytales, has gone through many changes over the years. Some versions didn't even include the transformation of the prince... and sometimes he didn't transform until after the wedding night. But one thing all versions have in common: They are about Beauty being selfless and putting aside her own needs, and eventually learning to see beyond physical appearances. It has always been a story about Beauty's character arch, clear and simple.
Don't take it from me, the history of the tale is well documented:
Spoiler
Like Cinderella, the tale of Beauty and the Beast is one of the best known stories in the world. Variants of the tale appear in numerous cultures. Aarne-Thompson classifed the story as "The Search for a Lost Husband" type 425, with "Beauty and the Beast" receiving its own subtype of 425C. This tale type is one of the most extensively studied by scholars which is understandable in part because so many tales fit into the category.
The tale of Cupid and Psyche (AT 425A) is considered by many scholars to be one of the first literary fairy tales. Written by Lucius Apuleius in the second century A.D., he relates the story in his novel, The Golden ***, as an old wives' tale told by an older woman to a young woman who is being held hostage for ransom. The tale features many characters from Greek/Roman mythology, although earlier records of this tale are not known. You can read three versions of the tale on the Tales Similar to Beauty and the Beast Page. The tale is a direct ancestor of the French Beauty and the Beast tale. It bears even closer resemblance to East of the Sun and West of the Moon (AT 425A), another animal bridegroom tale which I have annotated on SurLaLune. Cupid and Psyche was translated into English in 1566 by William Adlington and was well-known throughout Europe. For example, John Milton refers to the story in his Comus, first performed in 1634 and published in 1637.
The first version of Beauty and the Beast appeared in 1740 by Madame Gabrielle de Villeneuve. She wrote a novella length version of the story which appeared in La jeune ameriquaine, et les contes marins. Her audience was not children, but her court and salon friends who enjoyed sharing stories for entertainment. Scholars suppose that Villeneuve derived her story from traditional oral tales and "Le Mouton," a story by another court lady named Madame D'Aulnoy whose home was the site of one of the best known literary salons in that time.
Villeneuve's version contains many little known elements and does not end with the transformation of the Prince. She spends too much time discussing warring between the fairies, the parentage of the protagonists, and the reason for the curse on the Prince. Also, the transformation from beast to prince does not occur until after the wedding night. Villeneuve's version also contains dream sequences in which Beauty is told by the Prince in his true form to look beyond appearances and rescue him. She, of course, does not understand his message and must fall in love with the beast before she comprehends his full message. Note: The best English translation of de Villeneuve's entire story can be found in Jack Zipes' Beauties, Beasts, and Enchantment: Classic French Fairy Tales. This book is out of print, but can usually be found in larger libraries. The story is not available in the paperback edition of the book, Beauty and the Beast and Other Classic French Fairy Tales (Amazon.com link). The shorter version by de Beaumont is available in both editions.
The next version of the tale appeared 16 years later in 1756 by Madame Le Prince de Beaumont. Beaumont considerably shortened Villeneuve's novel into a short story which ends after the Prince is transformed. The extra storylines are omitted. This version is the best well-known and most used as the basis for later interpretations of the tale. Beaumont's version has weak areas, just as Villeneuve's version has. Beaumont assuredly had a younger audience in mind and her story is more didactic, concentrating on Beauty's virtue. She maintains the magical atmosphere well, but her message is clearly that industrious, self-sacrificing young women will find the most happiness just as Beauty does at the end of the story. Also missing are the dream sequences found in Villeneuve's version.
Scholars propose that Beauty and the Beast is a literary tale based on folk tale elements which reentered the folk culture with the literary elements added to it. In this way, the story returned to the oral tradition almost entirely as a brand new story. This gives Beauty and the Beast a considerably different history from many other tales.
The version of the story which I have annotated comes from Andrew Lang's Blue Fairy Book (1889). He attributes his version to de Villeneuve, but his version is actually an interesting mesh of de Beaumont and de Villeneuve. He favors de Villeneuve's elements of the story, but edits out much of the extra dialogue concerning the fairies and genealogies which de Beaumont decided to leave out of her version, too. The dream sequences are intact, however, which I wanted to include in the version I annotated. To read de Beaumont's version, I highly recommend either Jack Zipes' translation of the tale in Beauties, Beasts and Enchantments or D. L. Ashliman's online version at this external link: Beauty and the Beast.
I love discussions, and you sir are simply wrong. Your interpretation is insightful, but it is never the less missplaced. I urge you to read the original fairytale. Beauty and the Beast is about Beauty mostly, and also partially about her father the merchant.
And we're back on topic!
Yes really, the important parts are still there. Those important parts being various metaphors, that in itself being the reason you don't understand them or recognize their existence. The analysis actually fits better with the Disney movie nowadays, narrative technique is different now than it was back then and movies have other possibilities than books do. Roger Allers (the movie's main writer) did a good job of updating it without touching the core meaning of the story.
That it is aimed at kids has nothing to do with it. Many animated movies have profound stories, and kids being the target group actually makes it more meaningful to tell a story like this one.
And yes, Belle is the main character, on account of being the person you follow around. But the movie is not about her. Saying that is like saying that The Shawshank Redemption is about "a couple of guys in jail". She is just there to reflect the story. And though she goes through a transformation as well, that transformation is not the main point of the story - in any version, including those where the beast remains a beast.
I find it interesting that you claimed exactly the things that I said that you, being an average internet poster who can't admit that he is wrong, would:
1. You claimed that a cartoon can't be that deep or meaningful
2. You claimed that you can't miss the metaphor
3. You claimed to be an expert on these kinds of thing
jam's "You're wrong and I know better" record is stuck again. Can someone please unstuck it?
I haven't even gotten started on all the other stuff that's wrong about this thread. It's just that all that stuff is posted by people who obviously doesn't know better. But I did expect more from Rob.
EDIT Also, "unstuck" sounds like an adjective. You should not use it as a verb.
Last edited by raspberry jam; 06-07-2012 at 15:11.
GWOnline Content Team GWOnline Site Pal
Achievements:
Server
Kaineng
Guild
The Order of Dii [Dii]
Posts
29,179
Thumbs Up:
Received: 186
0
I think Rob has a valid point though.
With regards to:
Originally Posted by raspberry jam
1. You claimed that a cartoon can't be that deep or meaningful
2. You claimed that you can't miss the metaphor
3. You claimed to be an expert on these kinds of thing
Afaik (and I admit not having read everything)
1. He claims that this particular cartoon was not that deep, not that all cartoons were.
2. See #1
3. He claims having done research on those things for his work, which if you knew the game he worked on, you'd see is very likely that he did.
But of course, when you're on your "you're wrong" song, this is the kind of subtlety that you become blind to.
Originally Posted by harniq
Reply With Quote
== 
