Addison's Aladdin

Introductions are intended to hook the reader, giving them a taste of what is to follow and leave them eager to read on. Unfortunately, Addison’s opening paragraphs fulfilled neither of these for me. Addison’s opening paragraph in particular was very wordy, giving a synopsis of Islamic law and a brief history lesson. While this aspect of her article let me know from the very outset that she was very well informed about the topic, it was tedious to read and did not particularly enhance her argument in any way. Aladdin is a movie that has very much divided critics in terms of its “racist” content and Addison definitely does not sit on the fence when it comes to exposing the most “racist’ elements of the movie. I have to admit that when I watched Aladdin as a young child, I was completely oblivious to the racist components of the movie. However, having watched the movie again with a different perspective and after reading Addison’s compelling argument, I now see why Aladdin is such a controversial movie.

Although she does not explicitly state her thesis, Addison’s argument is very clear; Aladdin acted as a  “missionary project” and its aim was to replace Islamic culture, laws and social norms with American “individualism, romance and the aristocracy of the wealth” by deconstructing Islamic social order and culture. She made a very valid point when she described how Disney tried to portray Agrabah as a “trans-cultural, trans- geographical” place. Agrabah is ultimately a stereotypical representation of what most Americans perceive the Middle East to be like. Egypt, India, Arabia, Turkey and Morocco are all combined to form one large country; “The Orient”, suggesting that because each of these places are so different from American culture, the distinct differences between each separate country are trivial.

I agree with Addison when she suggests that the main characters’ appearances are caricatures of Islamic culture and primarily act to emphasize the huge discrepancies between American and Islamic culture. She remarks how Aladdin is the only clean-shaven male character and his skin is much lighter than the others, reinforcing his connection with ideological American culture. Even though he is supposed to be a typical poor Arab boy, it is clear that he has much closer affiliation with American culture than Islamic culture. He even asks Jasmine to call him Al, the Americanized version of the Arabic Aladdin. He doesn’t resemble any of the other Arabs in the movie and without a turban or headgear, is indistinguishable from an ordinary American. As an audience we are routing for Aladdin but in doing so we are not pulling from the Arab but in fact the American. Addison believes that wealth and love are paired together in the movie and are viewed in an overtly positive light. However, The quest for power, especially political power in the case of Jafar is portrayed as being destructive, driven by sinister desires. Beards are associated with power in the movie but it is skin color that largely dictates whether the character is viewed as good or evil. The Sultan has a bushy, white beard almost reminiscent of a harmless, Santa Claus like figure and is “race-neutral. While he may be ruler of the Arab people in this movie, it is hard to view him as an Arab due to his light skin complexion. Dark colors are associated with evil, sinister forces, one of the many reasons why this movie is considered racist. It’s not surprising, therefore, that Jafar has both a dark beard and dark skin tone. The other male antagonists with corrupt agendas; thieves, guards and street vendors bear similar resemblance to Jafar with their dark beards and skin color, reinforcing the link between color and evil.

Overall, Addison successfully argues that Aladdin is a racist film but her closing paragraph is perhaps not as effective at reinforcing her argument as it could have been. The references to domestic strategies and foreign policy are irrelevant and the idea that all Muslim woman long to be like American teenagers is a bit of a stretch. Personally, I believe that we are often ignorant of other cultures and assume that Arab’s wish for the things we possess, that they don’t have but in fact, what they truly desire may be very different.

Buzzfeed's Disney Villains on Snapchat

Trites The Little Mermaid

Roberta Trites is most definitely not a Disney fan. In her article, she launches a scathing attack on Disney and the materialistic and superficial values that Disney portrays in The Little Mermaid. Trites makes her thesis statement abundantly clear from the outset; Disney destroyed Anderson’s classic tale that embodied femininity and valued personal identity and integrity and created a movie based on the idea of superficial love. She is undoubtedly critical of Disney’s version and therefore, leaves no stone unturned when it comes to exposing the shallowness of Ariel’s and Eric’s characters. Trites is relentless in her criticism of Disney in this article and makes numerous searing accusations that this movie conveys the “wrong” message to children, especially young girls regarding love and independence. While I do agree that if you were to examine this movie with a fine toothcomb and analyze every detail, it is probably not the best teaching aid for young children. However, it is first and foremost an animated movie, one that was supposed to be entertaining and cheerful, not a point of reference for parents when it comes to instilling the importance of core values to their kids.

Trites suggests that Disney implies that; if children or teenagers, in the case of Ariel are “needlessly repressed” they will rebel against their parents and develop obsessive tendencies. Triton may have kept a tight rein on Ariel but I don’t think it was “needless repression”. He was simply doing what he thought was best for the wellbeing of his daughter and didn’t want any harm to come to her at the hands of human fishermen. While I agree that Ariel is somewhat of a free spirit and does what she pleases, I think that Disney was perhaps trying to imply that it is important to follow our dreams and that that we shouldn’t be content to remain miserable or dissatisfied in our lives.

Trites also argues that Disney insinuates that teenagers can become independent by becoming dependent on someone else. Personally, I think that this claim has more validity and is often seen in other Disney movies. Ariel’s desire to become free from her father’s control is so she can be with Eric, another strong male character rather than to lead the life she wishes. Both Eric and Ariel are guilty of focusing on the materialistic and superficial aspects of love and this is why Eric is so easily tricked by Ursula. However, the suggestion made by Trites that someone must be perfect in order to be ”loveable” is simply taking it too far. I completely agree with her when she notes that three days is a completely unrealistic time span for falling in love but, we have to remember that this is a movie and Disney wanted to cram as much in as they possibly could while still giving us what we all want at the end, the happily ever after wedding.

Trites focuses extensively on the imagery in this film, something I think that she reads way too far into. Ursula is definitely a menacing Disney villain and like other powerful Disney women, extenuates evil but the references to “Freudian and phallus like imagery” are quite a stretch.

Overall the message I think that should be taken from Trites’ extremely biased and critical article is that we must possess personal integrity if we are to develop a defined sense of identity, sadly something Ariel and so many Disney princesses never succeed in doing.