'Disneyfication' of Classic Literature

[Weevilcharley]

Hello everyone.

I am studying a Masters Course in Adaptation at De Montfort University, and have recently begun research for my dissertation. A rough title that I'm playing with at the moment is 'Disney adaptations and the cultural implications that the 'disneyfication' of fairytales has had on 20th and 21st century societies'. Obviously this will be narrowed down greatly by the time I come to writing the paper, but for now this is the title I am researching under.

 

As I want to really understand the wider implications of Disney's adaptations of classic literature, I wondered if any of you guys had any thoughts you wouldn't mind sharing with me- for my reference sake only if you would prefer I didn't quote any of you in my work!!!

 

For example, how do you feel about many characters from Classic Literature having come to be known as in the posession of Walt Disney? E.g "Disney's Snow White", "Disney's Cinderella". Do you feel that this is exploitation of the classics, or do you agree with some critics who claim that without Disney much of our 21st century youth would be completely unaware of the existance of these fairy tale legends who do not feature in their computer games and sci-fi tv programmes.

How do you feel about the fidelity, or indeed infidelity, of the Disney adaptations in comparison to the originals? Are they too sanitised perhaps? Or are they necessary adaptations to make a moral tale in order for the films to serve a purpose within the family unit?

 

I'd be really grateful for any feedback whatsoever!!

[Readwine]

Weevil, what an interesting premise. Let me think on this. I hope lots of people give you feedback and share their thoughts with you and the the BCF.

[Beccles]

Not an exploitation but a way of introducing children to books. As a child I read the book and saw the film adaptation or visa versa. Disneyisation has helped many children discover books.

[Dimitra]

Basically, I've only read the original Little Mermaid and Hamlet, which inspired Lion King. I love almost all Disney films. There are people who complain about changing much the original and stuff, but they forget that most of the time the original material is not appropriate for younger viewers.

[Guest ii]

I think you have to be a bit more specific as to which Disney movies you're referring to. Especially the ones after Pixar are... well, they're not good. (Few exceptions excluded.) The old ones, or the old new ones (Alladin, The Lion King, etc.) are really good and probably worth more of focus than Cars (I only managed to watch till the Ferrari joke) or The Incredibles.

 

That taken into consideration, you also have to be pretty sure an earlier story is being used. I've never heard, for example, of the Lion King - Hamlet connection. that's not to say it's wrong. Sometimes we want to see a connection and a rewriting of a story in what's basically just, well, a story. There's only so much that can be written about, after all. Overlaps happen. So provided you have good documentation on what stories were used as foundation (or, blatantly obvious cases like the Cinderella, Hercules or The Little Mermaid), it's an interesting comparison to make.

 

I'm very interested in this now, and I'd love to hear more about your research!

[BookJumper]

Great topic,, I'll be sure to come back and contribute more sometime when it's not 2am anymore.

 

For now though, let me confirm the

 

Lion King - Hamlet connection

 

(as well as the even more obvious Lion King II: Simba's Pride - Romeo and Juliet connection).

 

Re: Hamlet, think about it. King is murdered by power-hungry brother; murdered king's son stands in the way of the throne; rightful heir is chased away and in the intentions disposed of by the evil uncle; rightful heir's love interest is puzzled by his sudden weirdness; eventually rightful heir makes a big comeback and kills the evil uncle.

 

If they'd followed the story to its promised end Nala, Sarabi and Simba would have also died, but that might have traumatised irreparably the kids who only just managed to cope with the death of Mufasa.

 

Again, before I dash - brilliant topic!

[Chimera]

Great topic! It ties in with a challenge I set myself a while back: to view the disney classics, read the books behind them and see how they compare. Unfortunately I haven't gotten very far yet but it generated discussion with other members here and I put together a list of references. You can find it in this thread.

 

I don't have much time now, but I'll be sure to come back and leave my thoughts.

[Chrissy]

Hello Weevilcharley, you've certainly got a few people thinking for you!

 

I'm glad to see you back, as you haven't visited the forum since May. Just a reminder that forum rules do state that only active members can request help regarding their school/college/Uni work, so I hope you plan on sticking around.

 

The dissertation for your Masters does look interesting, and this is certainly a forum of opinions. I'll have to ponder your questions some more before I answer them.

[Dimitra]

I think you have to be a bit more specific as to which Disney movies you're referring to. Especially the ones after Pixar are... well, they're not good. (Few exceptions excluded.) The old ones, or the old new ones (Alladin, The Lion King, etc.) are really good and probably worth more of focus than Cars (I only managed to watch till the Ferrari joke) or The Incredibles.

I meant on the whole. I haven't seen all the films after Pixar, but some of them like Toy Story, Wall-E, Finding Nemo, Up and Monsters Inc. were brilliant. I haven't seen Cars, so I don't have an answer for that. Not each one of the old ones was great either. For instance, I didn't reaaly like Snow White or Pinocchio-well, I generally didn't like Pinocchio. But the last years, they are making films which aim to everyone and deal with serious issues, like Wall-E, so I think they deserve equal focus.

 

That taken into consideration, you also have to be pretty sure an earlier story is being used. I've never heard, for example, of the Lion King - Hamlet connection. that's not to say it's wrong. Sometimes we want to see a connection and a rewriting of a story in what's basically just, well, a story. There's only so much that can be written about, after all. Overlaps happen. So provided you have good documentation on what stories were used as foundation (or, blatantly obvious cases like the Cinderella, Hercules or The Little Mermaid), it's an interesting comparison to make.

About Lion King-Hamlet, what Book Jumper said.

Now that you reminded me of Hercules...as a greek, I know the original myth and no one can deny that they Disney film had very little to do with it. But I can't say that it wasn't an enjoyable film.

[Nollaig]

 

Re: Hamlet, think about it...

 

If they'd followed the story to its promised end Nala, Sarabi and Simba would have also died, but that might have traumatised irreparably the kids who only just managed to cope with the death of Mufasa.

 

Lion King - Hamlet connection is the only one I had actually ever heard of. I thought it was the most famous.

 

Additionally, r.e. Nala, Sarabi and Simba all dying too - now that I would pay to see A Disney movie where everyone dies. Except the baboon. Nice.

 

 

I'd be really grateful for any feedback whatsoever!!

 

Indeed, just like we'd be really grateful for any participation in the forum whatsoever!!!

[BookJumper]

Additionally, r.e. Nala, Sarabi and Simba all dying too - now that I would pay to see A Disney movie where everyone dies. Except the baboon. Nice.

Well, someone - the Horatio-figure - needs to be alive to recount the tale of the "sweet prince"... !

 

As promised, more thoughts (and for the record, you're quite welcome to quote me as extensively as you please, although if you do I'd appreciate it if you sent me a PM so I can give you my real name to stick in your foonotes ):

 

I'm not that horrified by the whole Disneyfication thing, to be honest. The classics can be amazing but let's face it, they can also be pretty traumatising. It seems obvious to me that if you're going to adapt Shakespeare (The Lion King I & II) or Hugo (The Hunchback of Notre Dame) for cartoon, you're going to have to tweak bits around. Some may say that 'toons shouldn't be drawing inspiration from such grown-up material, but one must consider that children's classics are usually even worse for children, in that their horrors aren't restricted to the physically probable.

 

Take The Little Mermaid, who (unable to bring herself to kill the prince who didn't return her love) used the knife meant to restore her tail to kill herself. Or Perrault's Sleeping Beauty, whose ogress mother-in-law tried her best to eat her and her children "cooked in a piquant sauce", and preferred to kill herself rather than be discovered by her son. I for one read these as a child, and was understandably rather disturbed by all the instances of suicide, cannibalism, etc.

 

[On a side note and in Walt's defense, it should be noted that Disney's Sleeping Beauty was actually based on Tchaikovsky Sleeping Beauty (cf. 'The Peter Tchaikovsky Story' in Sleeping Beauty, 2-Disc Platinum Edition) and is remarkably faithful to that.]

 

There is a purist in me who will decry all inaccuracies, yet there is also a child who rarely fails to be moved by a Disney offering. While watching Hercules for example, I made sure to point out every single departure from Greek Myth (admittedly, a rather saucy and unsuitable classic, even though my own first encounter with epic poetry was in primary school); yet Meg's song made me blubber like a toddler.

 

Sure - Zeus's wife Hera wasn't Hercules mother (she actually tried to kill him as an infant and made him kill his own children, cue the punishment of the Twelve Labours), Gertrude (-Sarabi) was a possible accomplice in Old Hamlet (-Mufasa)'s murder depending on what Hamlet text you're referring to, Esmeralda was not a very nice person... but are those the kind of examples we want to be setting to our young?

 

Until they're old enough to take an interest in the originals, I see little harm in exposing them to the great universal themes with well-told variations upon classics. For all its supposedly happy ending (had they gone happy-ending-mad, Quasi would have got the girl), Hunchback still explores racial/religious/physical/class intolerance and unholy obsession; The Lion King still addresses hunger for power, life after death, inability or unwillingness to act and eventual just retribution for sinners; Hercules is still the story of the remarkable achievements of a human-born demi-god.

 

All in all, I reserve more mercy for Disney's adaptations than I do for film adaptations gone wrong because there is a difference between a children's cartoon inspired by x and a film which claims to be the definitive version of x. The artistry inherent in most Disney animations, from the hand drawings to the songs and voice acting, I in fact find often superior to the aesthetic values offered by book-to-film transpositions.

 

... aaaand that's about it for now although I'm sure my opinionated self will be making a comeback before you have time to miss me!

[Weevilcharley]

Wow everybody, thank you so much for your quick- and fascinating- responses!!

 

I'm really glad everyone likes the topic, hopefully this will allow for an interesting and ongoing debate throughout my long months of study!!!

Firstly, Chrissy please allow me to explain my absence from the forum- in May I moved to Italy to work as an au pair, and the family I was staying with didn't have access, and since I've moved back to Leicester I only have access via the university library!! Luckily my library visits have increased to daily (as you can see, here I am on a Sunday morning!) so I fully intend to remain a very active member, and apologise for my lack of activity for so many months- it wasn't through lack of trying!

 

You've all offered some really excellent points, thank you so much, what a great start.

 

I think you have to be a bit more specific as to which Disney movies you're referring to...provided you have good documentation on what stories were used as foundation (or, blatantly obvious cases like the Cinderella, Hercules or The Little Mermaid), it's an interesting comparison to make.

 

ii, this is a very good point. For now however I'm trying to keep my study as broad as possible, rather than limit myself to one or two specific texts just yet. I can confirm though that I will be looking at the more ostensible adaptations- Cinderella, Snow White, Pinocchio, Peter Pan, Hercules for example, and of course Alice in Wonderland- one of my favourite books but one of my least favourite Disney films (the reason for which I really hope to discover during my research!!!!!!!).

 

As BookJumper states, the purist in us demands fidelity when it comes to adaptations, yet we're incredibly forgiving of Disney's films, which [often painfully obviously] deviate from the original.

Is this simply down to the style- the "artistry" you talk about, BookJumper?

Do we see a Disney film, and shrug off its changes with a "well that's because it's Disney" comment, perhaps due to a 'Disney Spell' he has cast over us, to paraphrase Jack Zipes (who has some excellent work on this idea of a 'stranglehold' Disney has maintained over popular culture, if anyone is interested.)?

Is it that we're subconsciously accepting the idea of Disney's target audience being mainly pre-adolescents, and for this we smile and nod and ignore any infidelity?

Or is it something completely different?

 

Disney's mission statement (business objective) is to "make people happy"- something the company certainly achieve, that much is inquestionable. How is this achieved, though? Through bright colours, use of song, or a happy ending? These are definitely traits we have come to expect of a Disney movie.

 

Additionally, r.e. Nala, Sarabi and Simba all dying too - now that I would pay to see A Disney movie where everyone dies. Except the baboon. Nice.

 

Nollaig you're probably not alone in this! My elder brother would most certainly pay a lot of money to see a sort of satirical version of a Disney movie, despite the fact that he's a sucker for a Disney Classic as much as the next person. Why is this?! Are we fed up of the 'fairytale' now? Have videogames and sci fi and horror movies taken over our subconscious, making Disney and the fairytale seem dated, 'cushy', and childish?

Of course, Disney hasn't always made these light and fluffy moral tales. His 1922 film of 'Puss In Boots', made with the Laugh-O-Gram animation studios, is 9 minutes of slapstick violence and 'evil' plans to manipulate authority (in this case, the King). Disney's hero in this short achieves success through deception and trickery. This is a far cry from, say, Cinderella, who's innocence and and sheer good will summon her Fairy Godmother in order to not only make things better, but make things the best that they could be!

This film, as well as others, is on Google Video, do check it out, it really is good :-D

 

Charley xx

[Nollaig]

I agree that older Disney movies were more serious, or least they weren't so fluffy. Even look at The Fox and the Hound - that's terribly upsetting and it's not even anywhere near as bad as the book!

[Mac]

Additionally, r.e. Nala, Sarabi and Simba all dying too - now that I would pay to see A Disney movie where everyone dies. Except the baboon. Nice.

 

This actually made me bark. Yes, bark.

[BigWords]

Interesting topic... Would anyone consider the film Edward Scissorhands to be an update of Struwelpeter (sp?). There are similarities between many modern films and unconnected (or merely suggested) works which are out of copyright. You might have a bit of work tracking down all of the numerous films which dumb down original texts.

 

To add to the Hamlet connection used in The Lion King (which was ripped off of a Japanese comic), the use of Shakespeare in so many films over the past twenty or thirty years has tilted from being amusing to being annoying. I like Shakespeare, so the not-quite-accurate (mis)adaptations have begun to grate.

[Scarlette]

This is an interesting topic. I have to say that Disney's versions of classics have never made me feel cheated out of a more accurate version of the story. I realized very quickly growing up that what Disney had in its colourful, jolly films were lightyears away from, say, the cut-off-her-toes version of Cinderella my gran used to tell me. I love the orginal slightly gruesome versions of Disney's tales, but the musical fluff is greatly entertaining, too.

[Chrissy]

Firstly, Chrissy please allow me to explain my absence from the forum- in May I moved to Italy to work as an au pair, and the family I was staying with didn't have access, and since I've moved back to Leicester I only have access via the university library!! Luckily my library visits have increased to daily (as you can see, here I am on a Sunday morning!) so I fully intend to remain a very active member, and apologise for my lack of activity for so many months- it wasn't through lack of trying!

No need to apologise, I travel in Mod mode! :eek2: The topic has certainly got us all thinking.

[Weevilcharley]

Interesting topic... Would anyone consider the film Edward Scissorhands to be an update of Struwelpeter (sp?). There are similarities between many modern films and unconnected (or merely suggested) works which are out of copyright. You might have a bit of work tracking down all of the numerous films which dumb down original texts.

 

To add to the Hamlet connection used in The Lion King (which was ripped off of a Japanese comic), the use of Shakespeare in so many films over the past twenty or thirty years has tilted from being amusing to being annoying. I like Shakespeare, so the not-quite-accurate (mis)adaptations have begun to grate.

 

Hm, I think I might shy away from trying to find ALL films which are based on myths/legends and fairytales- I only have 20,000 words!!!! I'm definitely going to stick simply with Disney, and even then only with his more ostensible adaptations- the obvious literature that people have come to associate singularly with Disney, eg. Snow White, Cinderella, and Peter Pan, to name a few of the most popular.

 

I discovered today that Disney actually own ESPN. Does that company leave any stone unturned??!!! I find it amazing that one singular human being has literally built a world-dominating Empire.

[BigWords]

Disney also owns Marvel Comics, which places their forthcoming films under the Disney banner (probably)... They're buying up the universe company by company until nothing is left untouched by mouse droppings... :eek2:

[Weevilcharley]

They've got Marvel as well?!?!!?!??! I was astounded to hear they own Miramax, because I've always thought of Miramax as a pretty outstanding film studios... and not that this changes that, but suddenly I feel bad for all these companies who just don't get to be self sufficient. Although I suppose if Disney approached me and asked to buy my [completely fictional] company I'd completely cave before they'd even finished the question....

[Weevilcharley]

Hey everyone. I've been speaking to my tutor about my work in a bit more detail, and we've decided that I'm definitely going to stick to Disney's adaptations of fairytales OR classic literature, rather than try and swamp myself in fairytales and classic literature.

 

One way we thought I might approach the study is to look at Snow White (so the original Disney fairytale), then take one from the fifties/sixties, so perhaps Cinderella, and then take a more recent one such like The Princess and the Frog (which came out last year, this year?), and discuss how the methodology of animation has changed, how the theory and process of adaptation to film has changed, and how these changes reflect on the changes made in society. So that'd be quite interesting.

What's everyone's thoughts? It would be really great to look at this evolution in process. And Snow White and Cinderella are such classic stories that there's enough material to help me along in my quest.

 

However. I don't feel at the moment that that has enough magic in it for me. While it would indeed be fascination, I want something with a bit more sparkle. It seems to academic for me (obviously I'm aware this is an academic thesis, but there's no harm in making it an interesting, different, magical read where I can :eek2:).

 

So then I thought I could maybe look at 2 specific texts, one of classic literature maybe (my thoughts drifted to Peter Pan), and one of classical standards- or of a more fairytale origin- so perhaps Hercules or The Little Mermaid, and compare the differences and similarities in the changes made during the adaptation process.

 

Third option is to do the same thing but comparing two/three classic literature adaptations/fairytales. I'm shying away from Alice in Wonderland because I'm going to use that as a study for my Popular Forms module essay. The classic literature examples I'd use would most probably be Peter Pan, the Jungle Books and/or Hunchback of Notre Dame. The fairytales I'd go for would probably be Snow White, Cinderella and/or the Princess and the Frog/The Little Mermaid.

 

Fourth option (this is the wild card), I could gander at Snow White, Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast (for example), and their 'Disney Princess' corp that has been developed from the films these heroines feature in. This one would be quite interesting, but I fear may drift too far away from the adaptations process. I just like the idea of being able to analyse what it is about these characters that Disney managed to make into incredibly successful selling marketing ideas, when in actual fact the real characters from the original texts are all a bit ... well ... wet! So that would allow me to look into the social context and cultural implications of women in America during the 30s/40s/50s, and how these films affected all that.....

This a bit much?

 

Let me know what you think, your previous feedback was excellent!

Thank you,

Charley

[lexiepiper]

The Princess and the Frog releases here in December I think :eek2: