Disney and their politics are turning a lot of heads these days; but when was Disney anything but questionable?
By Robert E. L. Walters
In the spirit of full disclosure, I have never liked Disney. For me, Disney has always had a "Mussolini in Italy" vibe; a managed environment with no trash, no ugliness, and no free-will where the monorails and trams run on time.
Take an inventory of the Disney vault. For a company that centers its theme parks on a replica of an American Main Street, there is precious little of American values in their cadre. What we get is an endless stream of autocracy. Even when they move away from classic (and Disney mutilated) fairy tales, we get an enviro-terrorist (Captain Nemo/20,000 Leagues Under the Sea), paternalistic colonizers (The Swiss Family Robinson) and in a fit of almost ironic hubris, a deranged capitalist intent on making a fur coat out of puppies (101 Dalmatians).
I don't want to be one of those people looking for "hidden agendas" in every Disney fable; their formula is so transparent, it's hard not to walk right into it and smack your face against the glass slipper. But likewise, I cannot say that their formula is very appealing to me. Beyond the dewy princesses and their daft princes, the clear juxtaposition of good versus evil (as determined by Disney) and the sappy plots of strained melodrama, there is a vein of child subversiveness that has always bothered me. In Disney, the protagonist is justified in their "dreams" (whatever they may be) and parents (or any other responsible authority figures) be damned. This is good marketing when you're selling to kids. What kid doesn't want to hear that their parents are idiotic tyrants and, in a perfect world (like Disney) everyone can be Peter Pan and do just as they like forever.
But it's also good marketing for anyone else who has "a dream" (whatever that may be) and society (or any other thinking, reasoning establishment figures) be damned. Can anyone really be surprised that Disney has bet the farm on the latest battle lines in the culture wars? It's tailor-made to their marketing plan of Utopia on demand (at a price) where consequences are tucked away in tunnels and secret passages right under the noses of their "Happiest Place on Earth" patrons.
In a 16 MAR 2022 piece by Nico Lang in Time Magazine entitled: Disney’s Public Reckoning Over LGBTQ+ Equality Has Been Years in the Making, Mr. Lang explores the effect Disney has had on nearly a century's worth of “proto-queer kids” (an interviewee's term) which in itself is troubling to this writer. What exactly is a "proto-queer kid" and by who's definition? The nomenclature produces visions of kids getting into self-woven chrysalises then unfolding at some later time into fully emergent gay butterflies, and for me, has the unintended consequence of sounding like old fashioned gay recruitment and influencing dogma of days gone by. But I digress.
The meat of the story however, centers on Disney's blade dancing posture with the gay community since the 1980's when gay artists such as Elton John and Howard Ashman breathed life back into the wan body of the desiccated Disney musical. Since that time, Disney has had to keep one eye on the establishment (who paid handsomely for wholesomeness) and the gay artists behind the scenes, who were conjuring the actual magic of the Magic Kingdom. If this sounds like hypocrisy, it was-- and gay men of a certain age (me being one of them) were never beguiled. Neither was GLAAD. Since 2012, Disney has received a “poor” or “failing” grade from GLAAD each year in the watchdog’s annual reports on LGBTQ+ inclusion, except on two occasions (the studio received an “N/A” in 2020, as GLAAD didn’t give out any grades that year, presumably due to the Covid-19 pandemic) and with some good reason. As I quote from the above article:
"As a company, Disney has also come under fire for its treatment of queer employees and customers. In 1995, Disney became one of the last studios to offer domestic partner benefits over industry-wide concerns regarding the costs of HIV/AIDS treatment, as the Los Angeles Times reported. Attendees of Disney parks were banned from dancing with people of the same sex until 1985, when it dropped the policy following a court ruling. Prior to that decision, the company had defended its same-sex dancing ban in court for four years."
All of this ironically lead to the first"Gay Days," in 1991, a gay guerilla protest against Disney and its homophobic policies that somehow morphed over the years into a gay circuit party. If there is any irony and justice in the whole Disney "gay" dichotomy story, it has to be going from hanging signs outside the entrance warning heterosexual visitors that,“members of the gay community have chosen to visit the Magic Kingdom today in their recognition of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month,” and even handing out plain white shirts to straight customers who accidentally wore red (the color Gay Days participants use to identify one another) to hosting (and promoting) a multi-day, drug and dance fueled bacchanalia.
These inconvenient truths belie a much simpler reality that I respect in many ways: Disney is a business, and as such, it wants to maximize its market. Truly, I can think of no other corporate entity that has so effectively played both sides of an issue for so long and so effectively. What other media business could consistently produce establishment subversive content for so long and be praised, worshiped and lionized by the very establishment it repeatedly seeks to mock and subvert?
People who dwell on mind control and Disney are not entirely without cause though, although I personally doubt any content from Disney (or anyone else) is going to turn any child gay, transgender, purple, green, fascist, liberal (or into a good red herring for that matter) their ability to affect child's playtime, imagination, and consumerism, cannot be denied however.
Many years ago I was at The Magic Kingdom (reluctantly) with a dear friend of mine who had gotten stuck with tickets when an ex of his had bailed on the trip. Standing in front of Cinderella's Castle, we heard the princess expound on her birthday celebration to Snow White (who hadn't brought a gift) and to whom Cinderella had told, her presence at the party and their enduring friendship was "gift enough." "So far, so good." I thought. Then, almost in the next breath, she reminded the wee patrons of this pageant that they should all make sure their moms and dads took them to the gift shop on their way out of her birthday party. I immediately dropped my six dollar lemonade and gasped. There was almost a stampede to the gift shop, and we were effectively trapped as the kids whined, cried, cajoled and consumed... just as Walt envisioned.
As I see it, the political agenda of Disney is inconsequential, because Disney's only real agenda, is to make money hand-over-fist. As a capitalist, I fully appreciate this agenda. The dilemma comes not from Disney and their politics per se, but from the legions of disaffected dreamers who really do believe that "When You Wish Upon a Star Your Dreams Come True." For this crowd, Disney is not the greatest vertically integrated media conglomerate ever conceived by man and stockholder, it's a benevolent force in the universe for good, justice, egalitarianism, and tolerance; all concepts by the way, that are pure, unadulterated anathema to their business model.
Disney is in the business of selling fantasy. If that fantasy is a mermaid who can defy their father and consort with the devil in a selfish Faustian bargain, so be it. It is up to the non-dreamers and grown-ups however, to remind the dreamers that, unlike Disney rewrites, some fantasies have dark and dire consequences. How children see themselves should always be allowed the freedom of imagination childhood entails without the pressure (actual or implied) to make those fantasies a permanent reality. Perhaps Johnny want's to play Ariel and Cindy wants to play Eric, but that does not mean either of them want to loose their voice and their future in the process.
To carry this "Little Mermaid" analogy to its Aristotelian conclusion, in Hans Christian Andersen's pre-Disney original, the little mermaid in question suffers terribly for her bargain; her legs are painful to use, and though she has acquired her desired soul and mate, she is miserable for her choices and ends up taking her own life. In an act of supernatural pity she is made into an air sprite and allowed 300 years to help mankind as her penance for entering heaven. Take from this story what you will; but hopefully Disney's management will take a few moments off from its political bloviating to re-read the original before they do even more harm than usual.
Comments