In Defense of Disney 3: Return of the Rant!

[leia131]

Character: Aurora/Briar Rose, from Sleeping Beauty (1959)

Criticism: “Betrothed at birth to solidify a political position, she is killed by another woman out of spite. Her owner… ahem… fiancé saves her with a kiss. Again, sex is her only salvation.”

Ok, I can’t really argue with the first sentence, but then again, I don’t see a problem with it, nor how any of that is Aurora’s fault. Whether you like it or not, and whatever it says about humankind throughout history, women were treated as political tools rather than people all the time. Especially princesses. Therefore, it’s not unreasonable to portray this in a movie. Maybe they think that Disney didn’t need to include that bit, especially in a kid’s movie, but we’ll come back to why they did later.  For now, I want to say that Stefan and his Queen (if we’re going to yell at this movie for sexism or whatever, how about the part where she doesn’t get a name?) love Aurora and want to see her safe and happy. I seriously doubt they would have gone through with the arranged marriage if she had really, vehemently opposed it. This is evidenced in the scene where Hubert and Stefan fight about their kids possibly not liking each other; the possibility that this might not work out has occurred to them. They end by reassuring each other that of course the kids will get along, but I bet that if they hadn’t, other arrangements could have been made.

She is ‘killed’, sort of, by another woman out of spite, that’s true enough. But I don’t really see how that’s a criticism. It’s called…a plot! Maybe they’re saying it’s sexist? Somehow? I don’t see how the circumstances would have been any different if either Maleficent or Aurora (or both) had been male, so I’m not sure why this is relevant. Unlike Snow White, Maleficent doesn’t go after Aurora because she’s pretty, or even because she’s a girl; it’s just to 1. be evil, and 2. hurt Stefan and his Queen. And Maleficent doesn’t have to be female either; the plot works equally well with a male villain. Sure, Disney could have made them male, but do we really want to advocate for fewer female characters, or for making the most badass Disney villain ever into a dude? I don’t think so.

Now, calling Phillip Aurora’s owner is both mean and wrong. Just because he’s betrothed to her doesn’t mean he owns her, and no one in the movie acts as if he does (at least, not any more than they act like Aurora owns him. Both of them get told they can’t marry the person in the woods, because they’re already engaged). If anything, going by tradition, her father still owns her until the vows are said. If you’re going to use that insult, at least do it right. As far as I can tell, Phillip doesn’t give a rat’s ass about his betrothed, since she’s mostly just a name to him. He wants to ride his horse around the kingdom and hunt, or whatever young princes do, probably drink and bang a few tavern wenches while he still can. He doesn’t like, sit around and think about how awesome it will be to own his future wife. In fact, he doesn’t think about his future wife at all. The only time we see his feelings on the subject are when he’s grimacing over her cradle (because he’s five, and girls have cooties!), and then blowing off the arranged marriage for some peasant girl.

Which brings me to my next point. When Phillip meets Aurora in the woods, contrary to what it says above, sex isn’t her only salvation. Fate, and magically magical one true love, are. I don’t even know that Phillip makes any remark about her being beautiful, and what initially draws him to her is her voice. Also, fate. Which is what this movie is really about, and Maleficent even says so (But see the gracious whim of fate - why, 'tis the self-same peasant maid, who won the heart of our noble prince but yesterday). The reason that Disney shows Phillip and Aurora being betrothed in the beginning is really so that the audience can appreciate how awesome fate is; even though she’s hidden away in the woods, and has no idea she’s a princess, fate brings the two people who are fated to be together, together. In conclusion: fate. It’s also so we can have that hilarious scene where Phillip tells his father he’s going to marry a peasant girl rather than Aurora, and the audience can chuckle and poke each other and know that everything’s going to be all right, because they’re the same person! Finally, fate serves to galvanize Phillip into action: Would he have raced to free Aurora from the dragon if she was just Some Hot Chick? Maybe, since he’s good and all, but it has so much more passion and meaning because she’s the peasant girl he fell in love with, AND his betrothed. Therefore, if he can only wake her up, everything will be resolved!

And yes, he does save her with a kiss. Because 1. that’s just the way it’s done in fairy tales, and 2. Kisses are basically symbols of love, and they’re each other’s one true love. Nothing can stop that, not even thorns, dragons, magic sleeps, or all the powers of Hell. Sex isn’t Aurora’s salvation: fate combined with love, is. The movie doesn’t teach that sex or beauty solves all problems, or that that’s all you have to have to be happy. It teaches that true love conquers all (which, again, Maleficent says), and with it on your side, you get help from fairies and can slay the HUGE FUCKING DRAGON with ease. You may or may not believe that, but it’s the main message here.

P.S. Don’t say that Aurora doesn’t do anything either. For her first 16 years, she has a very happy life and doesn’t know that there’s anything that needs to be done, besides gathering berries; it’s not like she has anything to escape from. Then, she has like, a few hours between finding out that she’s a princess (and do they even tell her that there’s evil afoot? I don’t think they do) and getting put to sleep, which she hardly could have avoided. (See: Fate). What the hell was she supposed to do? Kick Maleficent in the face? (Ok, that would have been cool, but dreadfully out of character. Besides, Maleficent is magnificent. She has to be allowed to succeed for a while, just through sheer force of her awesomeness).

To see the two previous entries in this series, please click on the 'in defense of disney' tag.

Comments

[jurisfiction16.livejournal.com]

And sons were used as political pawns just as much as girls. They were frequently told they had to marry to make a strong alliance with this house. The only difference is that men got to make these political decisions for themselves, were they old enough and had the power to do so. Women, throughout history, tended to be told whom to marry by the most senior member of her family. And you can hardly fault Disney for that. In conclusion, men and women were both pawns in the political marriage game, the only difference being that men were sometimes able to use themselves as pawns for their own advantage. So the fact that she was betrothed since birth is not really a sexist issue so much as a historically correct one.

Secondly, I don't know that Phillip judges her by beauty. He never sees her before he is drawn in by her. He is foremost attracted to HER TALENT. She's one of the few princesses who, though beautiful and impossibly good and probably dull by our standards, actually has a talent. She is good at singing. And lord knows, no one in modern culture has ever been attracted to someone who can sing well. That's clearly just sexist. Apart from the part where it isn't.

You're also missing some crucial back-story in your argument. There were serious complications in the making of this movie, which probably prevented Aurora and Phillip from having more personality. In case you weren't aware--as many people aren't--the actors went on strike half-way during the movie, which is why Aurora and Phillip don't speak at all after their whole "I'm going to marry the person I met in the woods" speeches. There is only so much you can do when your characters are FORCED to not have voices. Namely that their Voice (capital V) suffers for it. Again, this isn't really Disney's fault.

One could also argue about the fairies' gifts. Yes, they made her beautiful, why didn't they make her smart, blah blah. Here's the thing--it was important to the kings that their kids marry. The best way to ensure everyone was happy was by making Aurora as attractive to Phillip as possible. If she were ugly, he could have refused the marriage or treated her terribly, given the difficult fact that he was being forced to marry her. It's hard to find fault here. In addition, as part of the beauty thing they made her good and kind ("She walks with springtime wherever she goes"-can you really imagine someone who walks with springtime being anything other than soft and kind and sunshine-y? If she walked with winter, it might be different). We therefore get some personality to balance out the whole pretty thing. And if the fairies saw fit to make her a benevolent ruler in addition to making her marriage easier on everyone by making her attractive, then how is that bad? Finally, they give her talent. Which is a completely useless gift in terms of her political position, but it gives her . . . wait for it . . . A VOICE. Capital V.

Furthermore, thank GOD the good fairies and Maleficent were all female characters. It is not because women really want to tear each other apart out of jealousy, or that women can only be either stupidly good or totally evil. These women were (or should have been, as Maleficent thinks) invited to court. They had political power and importance, which is why Maleficent feels slighted. The fact that Maleficent wields such power alone--albeit, evil power--should make this a semi-feminist work. The fairies balance it out, too. Not all women with power are evil. In fact, MORE women in this movie have tremendous power that they use for good than for evil. I also like the whole reasoning behind Maleficent's spell. She's not jealous of the baby or even feels threatened by her. There is back-story between her and Stephan that we don't get. They've had a disgruntled political relationship and she is retaliating in the best way she knows how--by threatening the future reign of his kingdom through the death of his heir. Nothing about this speaks of the pettiness that other female villains have had. The Evil Queen and Lady Tremaine might have more vain and domestic reasons for hating their respective princesses, but one can not say the same thing about Maleficent.

[jurisfiction16.livejournal.com]

In addition, I get why it's easy for people to think these are completely sexist films, given that they are based off of tales which were created during hundreds of years of female oppression. By staying "true" to the tale, it's difficult to get away from the "good" women being beautiful and oppressed. And I agree that these movies could probably use an updating. I'm sure we could think of a sophisticated way to give the princesses more power while remaining true to the story. However, in the 1930s through the 1960s, they DIDN'T think of a more sophisticated way to do that because we, as a culture, didn't feel the need to. Given that these were made pre-feminist revolution, I'd honestly say they are not bad. Not nearly as bad as they could have been, anyway.

God, people, they are works of art that were perfectly acceptable for their time, based off of tales that had been building for hundreds of years. Given these circumstances, it is stupid that we criticize the films for not being as gender-equal as we have grown to expect over the last forty years.

[leia131.livejournal.com]

I actually did know about the strike/not speaking thing, but I didn't really think that was super relevant. I love how you wrote like, a second essay to go with mine. We are awesome. And of course you've brought up several good points, besides reinforcing some of mine.

And WORD to everything you said about Maleficent. She is so very very awesome, and that's why she's the main Disney villain in Kingdom Hearts who looks down on people like Hook and Jafar, with their small-time schemes. She is the master of all evil!

[leia131.livejournal.com]

Your last two sentences are really why I think the original picture I'm refuting is so fucking stupid.

Also, Ariel tomorrow! Who, we will see, being from 1989, has a much less passive role.