Dopey's Legacy

As much as I would like to believe that Disney did not purposely set out to ridicule individuals with intellectual disabilities in its movies, the arguments presented by Schwartz are truly compelling in her article “Dopey’s Legacy”. Schwartz structured her argument very effectively; with a clear and concise thesis statement, well-reasoned and logical points and most importantly, she provided overwhelming evidence to validate her highly controversial claims. Before reading her article, I must admit that I was quite skeptical that Disney could possibly satirize such a delicate, “taboo” subject so openly in is films when mental illness and disabilities are still issues we all are reluctant to address in today’s society. I remember saying in my opening post that I planned to remove my rose tinted glasses in order to uncover the truth behind the ideological Disney Empire over the course of this class. In that case, those glasses are well and truly shattered after reading this article.

Schwartz not only presents us with one example of Disney’s stereotypical portrayal of individuals with intellectual disabilities, but three, with each example being progressively more appalling and shocking.

Schwartz chose to deal with the highly entertaining and comical characters of Dopey from Snow White, Gus from Cinderella and Le Fou from Beauty and the Beast. While these characters are from very different films, from different time periods they are all connected by the fact that they all share three common characteristics according to Schwartz; they are all portrayed as being childlike, non-human and fools/’The village idiot’. From watching Snow White it is obvious that Dopey is not like the others; he lags behind and is generally incompetent in whatever he does. Schwartz cleverly points out that Dopey wasn’t in the Grimm brothers’ original version. Therefore, the question is whether Disney intentionally set out to portray him as having a disability or just added his character for comic purposes. Personally, I think that Disney’s intention was closer to the latter, however, individuals with intellectual disabilities are easy targets and it is easy to poke fun at them.

For me, the most sinister point Schwartz made was that we view these individuals as being non-human. De-humanizing characters such as Dopey and LeFou makes it easier to us to make fun of them and laugh at their expense as it is almost like they are not humans with emotions and feelings like us. Such degradation of human beings is truly horrifying and distasteful and is a far cry from the ideological image portrayed by so many aspects of Disney films. These characters as branded as ‘the other’ and are marginalized and unvalued by society. This is unfortunately a sad reality faced many people who have a disability or not conform to social norms in our world today. Gus may be the exception in so far as that he is actually a mouse but the similarities between LeFou and the pig in the pond are uncanny and slightly unsettling. Dopey’s and LeFou’s names further enhance their portrayal as being stupid with LeFou literally being translated from French as ‘the fool’. Schwartz really challenges us to reflect on the value of each and every human life and highlights the enormous influence that global corporations such as Disney have in setting what are perceived as being societal norms by creating exaggerated stereotypes. Whether it likes it or not Disney has the responsibility to be an advocate for society

and has an unfathomable influence when it comes to shaping the attitudes of society. Sadly, these characters are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to negative stereotypes of intellectual disability and Disney clearly does not fulfill this responsibility in these and many of its other films.