Thesis on Disney Renaissance

[ariellew]

Hi everyone! I'm writing my thesis on the Disney Renaissance Era, but I'm stuck! I have ideas, but narrowing down on an argument is proving to be very difficult. I feel like I need to converse and bounce ideas off of other Disney fans to get my brain going! So I'll hit you with my idea:

I've basically divided the Renaissance into two groups: Little Mermaid, Beauty&Beast, Aladdin VERSUS Pocahontas, Hunchback, Mulan. Ariel, Belle, and Jasmine represent the more Classic Disney females, while Pocahontas, Esmeralda, and Mulan are the more New Wave Feminist figures.

After Disney's 20 year 'blah' period due to the death of Disney plus other factors, the Renaissance started with the release of the Little Mermaid (animation style evolved, music was more broadway styled). So Disney's foot was back in the door with the release of films that mirrored the classic era of Disney (Snow White, Cinderella), but with a modern twist. They try to make the female heroines more independent, (but they're really not).

The reason I put Jasmine in the first group is because even though she is Disney's first ethnic female character, she is basically the ethnic version of Snow White (plus she's a secondary character). So Disney is still giving the audience what they want, but trying to branch out racially and culturally.

Suddenly, there is a MASSIVE and SIGNIFICANT shift with the release of Pocahontas, Hunchback, and Mulan. There is a shift story wise, character wise, and even aesthetic wise. The stories fall under the more tragic frame (dealing with issues of race, class, culture, religion) These issues are more prominent than the classic Disney themes of love and happy endings. Female figures are more independent, action-based, saving the males, not ending up with the male protagonists. The films are visually dark as well as their content.

I guess my main questions are why the shift to more socially and politically conscious films? Why are Ariel, Belle, Jasmine more well known/popular? The Renaissance peaked with the Lion King and these films were not NEARLY as successful as the beginning half of the 90s. Is it because the first half are actually princesses (2nd group are not)? Maybe because the 2nd group are all of different ethnicities?

If anyone would like to add ideas or provide input, it would be very beneficial to my research!!

- Arielle

 

[olwyngdh]

I have different questions for you to think about depending on your discipline. An English thesis will need different direction than a sociology one (and I can see your proposal as either. )

 

[ariellew]

I have different questions for you to think about depending on your discipline. An English thesis will need different direction than a sociology one (and I can see your proposal as either. )

Good point! I forgot to clarify. My major is Film Studies. My professors rely heavily on the theory aspect of analyzing film, but of course in film, aesthetics must be commented on as well.

 

[olwyngdh]

Good point! I forgot to clarify. My major is Film Studies. My professors rely heavily on the theory aspect of analyzing film, but of course in film, aesthetics must be commented on as well.

Ok, relying on my one film as lit class here to come up with stuff

I would look at what was happening politically and culturally, not just in America, that allowed them the opportunity to expand into multicultural princesses and films that carried a political message...possibly relate it somehow to what was being done with film in WWII and the Cold War to influence filmgoers opinions on various things.

I would see if I could get information, possibly an interview, from someone on the creative teams at the time.

Also, when you are looking at film, more than any other art, you have to look at the money. What was happening in the company that brought about the renaissance from a financial aspect? What made them see these particular stories as moneymakers?

What developments in animation techniques aided them not only in telling the stories, but in selling them?

Was there a shift in studio management between the two groups? Or did the success of the first three give them the confidence to take the risks they did in the second three?

Let me know if that helps, and I will see if I can think of anything else. It has been over 30 years since I took that class!!

 

[surferdave]

Suddenly, there is a MASSIVE and SIGNIFICANT shift with the release of Pocahontas, Hunchback, and Mulan. There is a shift story wise, character wise, and even aesthetic wise. The stories fall under the more tragic frame (dealing with issues of race, class, culture, religion) These issues are more prominent than the classic Disney themes of love and happy endings. Female figures are more independent, action-based, saving the males, not ending up with the male protagonists. The films are visually dark as well as their content.

.......

Why are Ariel, Belle, Jasmine more well known/popular?

I don't think there's any mystery here. People go to movies, especially children's movies, to have a good time. Not to be socially enlightened, mull over tragedy and ponder deep themes. Film makers seem to have a burning desire to make important movies that address issues they feel strongly about but if they want to do it on a big stage with big box office results they have to be incredibly subtle about it, and they rarely are once they set out to make a point.

But that's probably not going to be very helpful to you for a Film Studies thesis. So I'll just go find a Michael Bay film on Netflix and stay out of this.

 

[ariellew]

Ok, relying on my one film as lit class here to come up with stuff
Let me know if that helps, and I will see if I can think of anything else. It has been over 30 years since I took that class!!

Thank you! This helps a lot! I definitely need to look into the political and cultural state of the 90s, because I think that will help answer some of my questions.

And there was a shift in studio management before the Renaissance. There was trouble during production of The Fox and the Hound, and Don Bluth, one of Disney's long-time animators left and took 17% of the animators with him to start a rival company. That's when Roy E. Disney persuaded Eisner to let him supervise the animation department.

And there definitely was some kind of change in animation that I should look into. Just by noticing the animation in Little Mermaid compared to Oliver and Company, released a year before Mermaid. They were definitely doing something different.

You've given me a lot to think about! Thanks!

 

[ariellew]

I don't think there's any mystery here. People go to movies, especially children's movies, to have a good time. Not to be socially enlightened, mull over tragedy and ponder deep themes. Film makers seem to have a burning desire to make important movies that address issues they feel strongly about but if they want to do it on a big stage with big box office results they have to be incredibly subtle about it, and they rarely are once they set out to make a point.

But that's probably not going to be very helpful to you for a Film Studies thesis. So I'll just go find a Michael Bay film on Netflix and stay out of this.

Hahaa! That is very helpful actually. It's the same question I keep asking myself over and over. Why do this in a movie where it's targeted towards children?

One answer could be financially. You add the fun stuff like talking animals and light humour for the kids, but who is paying to take these kids to the theatre? The parents. So there needs to be something in the film that is going to make the parents want to to sit through the film.

Disney could be trying to expand their target audience. When Disney releases a film, everyone goes to watch it, not just children.

And most importantly, I feel like Disney is trying to branch out racially and culturally. I know film theorists and critics nit-pick at films like Pocahontas, Mulan etc. saying their portrayal of that specific culture is inaccurate, and of course it's going to be inaccurate! They're not from that culture. But I definitely don't think it's Disney's intention to stereotype/make fun of those cultures. Critics need to remember that Disney did not create these stereotypes, they reflect them.

If Disney portrayed Natives in the 90s like they did in Peter Pan in the 50s...they would be shot, so it's all about the shift in learning what is politically/socially correct at that given time period.

 

[Yellowstonetim]

I disagree with the comment about going to see Disney movies just for fun. I always look for deeper themes and like movies, like Frozen, because they teach and support truths I believe in. I think others do this to, but not a huge percentage of us, at least not consciously.

Research public criticism of Disney films during the period. There is an entire industry on criticizing Disney (This happens with anyone at the top of their field/industry) and Disney has been pretty wise in ignoring it and then changing at the right time to match - not the complainers - but the culture as a whole.

I think you might find that Disney movies changed as society changed it's views and these changes can be traced in articles of the day. Just like it is changing more now. Look at the far more modern view in Frozen and how well it was received.

 

[Micca]

All media has evolved over the years offering more intensity & more mature themes. Perhaps it was Disney's inability to address this in the post-Walt era that leaves much of the 70s/early 80s output lacking. Just a thought

I would also cite the importance of the increased profile and quality of the music in Disney films in the renaissance era. The blockbuster Disney movies from the past 30 years almost all have Broadway/Contemporary Hit quality songs. There are exceptions (The Incredibles) but when you think of Mermaid/Lion King/Aladdin all the way through to Frozen you must admit the songs are a huge factor in their success.

BTW, if you haven't seen "Waking Sleeping Beauty", find it & watch it before you finish your thesis. It might help "light the way" for you.