While outraged families are right to cut off Disney from their children’s imaginative formation, they should have been doing this a long time ago. The now-blatant sexual agenda of the corporation is only the final manifestation of a distorted and perverse view of reality that has pervaded the “Disney” brand for a long time.
The recent disclosures of the overt sexualization of Disney cartoons have outraged many American families. Disney executives have openly stated that they have increasingly injected LGBT content, characters, and themes into their films and that they do, in fact, have a “gay agenda.” They have spent millions to promote left-leaning political causes against the interests of their main customers.
While upset families are right to cut off Disney from their children’s imaginative formation, they should have been doing this a long time ago. The now-blatant sexual agenda of the corporation is only the final manifestation of a distorted and perverse view of reality that has pervaded the “Disney” brand for quite a long time—even from the earliest of its feature-film cartoons. While the original films may not have presented a dysfunctional view of human sexuality, they did present a distorted view of the world and of the family. Most never were what we might call “age-appropriate.”
Step back a moment and consider the original Disney feature-films for children, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Fantasia, and Pinocchio, and then ask yourself: Is this the imaginative world of an innocent child or of a wounded adult? Do these films introduce nightmare images to a child’s mind, or do they offer a way out of nightmares inherent to the child’s mind?
J.R.R. Tolkien’s excellent essay, “On Fairy Stories,” addresses the very problem that Disney had from its inception: the notion that fairy stories are exclusively children’s stories. They are not. They are stories allowing adults to examine the world from a new perspective to find a better way to live. Tolkien asserts that people connect “the minds of children and fairy- stories,” but “this is an error; at best an error of false sentiment, and one that is therefore most often made by those who, for whatever private reason (such as childlessness), tend to think of children as a special kind of creature, almost a different race, rather than as normal, if immature, members of a particular family, and of the human family at large.”
The Brothers Grimm collection of fairy stories are not meant for bedtime reading to young children. Yet Walt Disney and his original production team chose a Grimm story, Snow White, as their first feature film in 1937 for families with young children. Most readers will recall the basic plot of the story, so let me briefly analyze the problems in this film as I argue that it does not properly form a child’s moral imagination.
First, Disney combines nightmarish images with buffoonery. Once her life has been spared, Snow White runs screaming into a chaotic forest whose darkness is cut by stabs of light illuminating demonic faces and silhouettes—an intense, unsettling scene of garish light and noise. She (along with the four-year old audience member!) passes out from fear but then awakens to a gentle scene filled with loving animals who lead her to the house of the bumbling seven dwarves. The scene radically shifts from its preceding one, and the viewer sees now only Snow White’s peaceful life with goofy, bumbling, appropriately-named dwarves. A flash of fury interrupts these pastoral scenes when the evil queen realizes Snow White still lives. The “fairest of them all” then radically shape-changes into a frightening-looking beggar woman who finds Snow White’s forest home and interjects her ugly face into the window, breaking the beauty and harmony of the refuge.
This shifting of the sands of safety undermines a keen sense of what is real. Is the nightmare-state reality? Is the pastoral? The two cannot be blended but must be determined clearly in the mind first of the adult and then the child. To present the nightmare in such serious terms and the pastoral realm with such buffoonery suggests that the more “real” of the two is the first, the nightmare. This is a significant problem if you want your child to have a firm foundation in the powerful assurance of the true, good, and beautiful. If this triad becomes associated with the farcical, the absurd, and the humorous but ultimately impotent world of the seven dwarves, then the child loses the power and majesty of these three realities. The peaceful world of nature is ineffectual as a guard against the serious presentation of evil’s invasion.
This leads to the second major problem that Disney films often repeat: the depiction of men, if they are present at all, as infantile fools who need a “woman’s touch.” Snow White becomes the mother figure to these older men who, despite their years, are grossly immature compared to the much younger woman. The scenes of her caring for the dwarves are amusing, even winsome and tender, but they are also demeaning to men, stereotyping them as dopey, lazy, grumpy, dirty figures. Further, they are useless as protectors when most needed. They act as adults only once Snow White has already bitten the poisoned apple. They chase the witch to her death and then place the sleeping body of Snow White in a glass coffin. The only other male figure in the story is the prince who initially appears as a love-interest to Snow White and then only reappears to kiss her and marry her at the tale’s conclusion. The story does not manifest many masculine virtues because its focus is female: the mother-daughter relationship.
The final problem is the most serious, and one which Disney storylines repeat: the entrance of evil into the home and the destruction of fundamental security. In Snow White, we see this from the beginning – both parents are absent: her mother has died, her father remarries and then also dies. She relies on the stepmother as her mother-figure. This relationship is immediately severed, however, as soon as Snow White reaches her teenage years and becomes more beautiful than her stepmother. Jealousy arises on the part of the queen who hates her stepdaughter so much that she orders her killed in the grisliest of ways – her heart cut out. Thus, from the outset Snow White has suffered what most children deeply fear – the loss of their parents, which itself represents psychically the loss of safety, security, and community. Not only does the film depict this most universal and subliminal fear, it goes on to suggest that the mother-daughter relationship necessarily ends in rivalry and hatred. Nature severs the biological relationship and sin severs the adopted one. Where is the foundation of trust and love in this story? It does not exist and that is what makes it so corruptive of a child’s imagination.
Snow White sets a pattern in 1937 that Disney invariably follows in subsequent films with only a few exceptions. Fundamental reality is unclear. Men are comic, immature, unreliable figures. The protective power of the family falters before the destructive forces of evil: Parents die, trusted adults betray, children are left to fend for themselves.
Tolkien strongly disliked Disney productions, writing in 1938 that he had a “heartfelt loathing” for the stories, and holding still to that view in 1964: “I recognize his talent, but it has always seemed to me hopelessly corrupted. Though in most of the ‘pictures’ proceeding from his studios there are admirable or charming passages, the effect of all of them to me is disgusting. Some have given me nausea.”
Almost all Disney films present a story from the perspective of an adult grappling with mature problems or issues. Because they are cartoons with silly songs, goofy characters, and plenty of bodily-humor jokes, we assume they are for children. Implicit in this is the assumption that they are “safe” for children and form well their imaginative and moral senses. Yet consider how many Disney films have a plot that is more suitable for an adult than a child. For instance, Cars 3’s plotline is one that only an aging man or woman could sympathize with or comprehend. It is the story of life’s waning rather than waxing: the middle-aged man who struggles against the passage of time and the weakening of his physical strengths. This is no story for a child who is on the cusp of life’s strength and glory! A child’s world is of the sunrise not sunset.
In our family, we looked forward to watching Toy Story 3 because the series had been a good one, with few problematic areas. However, like Cars 3, the plot line was adult. The cowboy doll, Woody, is past his prime and no longer useful to the now-college age boy, Andy, who decides to throw away all his once beloved toy-friends. From the outset, this is already dark and disturbing imagery for a child. We watched it despite the increasingly troubling themes of the film, such as the rage of the abandoned toys and the prison scenes of the daycare dolls. That was a mistake. We shut it off when our children ended up screaming as the beloved toy characters were on the conveyor belt to the incinerator. Speaking from my own moral sense and imaginative experience, I had kept saying to them, “Don’t worry, they’ll be saved. Lotso (the Care-Bear style character) is going to have a change of heart. They saved him and he’ll save them. Just wait.” But the film betrayed my confidence. Instead, Lotso has the chance to save the figures by stopping the conveyor belt but does not. In fact, he deliberately restarts it and limps away from the doomed toys.
What is the image that a child takes from this episode? A character is given mercy but does not return it. His actions speak volumes: “I am in hell and you can burn there, too.” The image of the incinerator’s fire reinforces that lesson. In adult life, we sometimes encounter such bitter souls who want everyone to suffer as they have suffered. Some even desire their own damnation. But children ought not to grapple yet with that truth of a fallen world. A darker, more depressing film than Toy Story 3 I myself have not seen in the world of R-rated films. We did not make the mistake of watching the 4th installment of the series and inflicting those images on our children’s minds.
The Toy Story 3 incident caused us to stop watching Disney and its once-worthy Pixar counterpart. We increasingly came to realize their films undermine the family and present corrupt images that have nothing to do with the current sexual agenda but which remain dangerous. In discussing with our children why we cancelled our Disney+ account, one said something quite astute: “It’s like inviting someone into your house to babysit your children and while she’s there, she tries to turn the hearts of the children away from their parents.”
If the current outrage at the now-overt, omni-sexual agenda of Disney is awakening parents to the importance of forming well their children’s imagination, then very good. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Do not let the corrupt vision of the modern storyteller rock your child’s cradle. Take custody of the world you allow your child to inhabit through films and stories. They are not inconsequential dabblings of entertainment. A blurred-out lesbian kiss or an openly-gay character will do less damage to a child’s imagination than a clearly corrupt and infernal story line.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image, uploaded by Its’OlgaRodina, is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
The Grimm’s fairy tales are not exactly knee-slappers. It would be interesting to study their effect on German culture.
Thank you, Helen for your insightful observations. Walt Disney is probably rolling over in his grave.
Well done, Helen. I have always had uneasy feelings about these films, their technical prowess aside. What are your thoughts on Bly’s once famous, Iron John?
Great insight! What did yall replace Disney/Pixar movies with for family movie night or kids viewing?
It is kind of gutsy, or something, to see a conservative criticize even old Walt-era Disney.
I don’t think it did me any harm, I think us adults sometimes exaggerate how strongly kids take films, but I’d agree there is something of an odd morality in some of it. I don’t think men come out that bad, but mothers tend to be absent or terrible. (I think I realized that as a kid when I realized the Mom in Secret of NIMH, a Bluth film not Disney, overcame her fears to save her children which is something Disney mothers pretty much never do even if they are basically kind mothers like Dumbo’s) And the focus is often on romantic love, which is more an adults concern.
I share some concerns that Dr. Freeh has about recent decisions the Disney company has made, but her later assertions (or “problems” as she dubs them) are very problematic. The problems in her article here are too numerous for me to address in this forum (and at the end of an academic semester), but I have done a lot of work in the field of children’s literature, and I would ask Dr. Freeh read at least two books that might give her further insight into children’s literature and entertainment as well as the general history of childhood. First, I would recommend Seth Lerer’s excellent and very readable book Children’s Literature: A Reader’s History, from Aesop to Harry Potter. Second, I would also suggest C.S. Lewis’s important book of posthumously collected essays Of Other Worlds; one of my favorite quotes is from an essay where Lewis stresses, “Let there be wicked kings and beheadings, battles and dungeons, giants and dragons, and let villains be soundly killed at the end the book. Nothing will persuade me that this causes an ordinary child any kind or degree of fear beyond what it wants, and needs, to feel.”
Helen, how great to run into you today on this website! One thought among many that I’d like to share —-
As a baby boomer, I was raised on the older Disney movies and still have a fond attachment to them. I never saw Snow White or the dwarves as you describe them. Snow White was to me the model of feminine virtue, the prince was strong and good like my father. Dwarves were dwarves, not people. I watched these movies in a pre-60s world; men were men, women were women, the bad was punished and the good was praised. That is, the “fundamental reality” I lived in was very clear. Nobody I knew watched TV as a pre-schooler. I probably didn’t watch any Disney movies until I was about 8 or so. We didn’t have a TV until I was almost 6 years old, my sister was 10. I can’t recall ever seeing a Disney movie in a theater, only on a 16 inch screen in the safety of my own living room with either my parents and/or my sisters next to me.
I’m aware of what’s going on in the world of Disney now and it’s bad. But Disney is a symptom of the rot, not the source. It seems to me the real culprit is us, our society, the false reality we’ve created including our notions about children, childhood, family, parenting, faith, the way we use technology and so on.
Maybe it’s my nostalgia for the Disney classics, maybe it’s because there’s so few good films for children today, but Dr. Freeh’s arguments are rather hollow when I read them.
Can the classic Disney films have dark elements? Absolutely. But, contra Dr. Freeh, they don’t terrify children with evil; as Chesterton observed, children already know that evil exists and that it’s frightening. What Disney’s old films (like fairy tales) did was teach children that evil could be defeated, even if it had invaded the sanctity of the home, and, more than that, WOULD be defeated (you’ll notice very few old school Disney villains living past their cinematic debit).
And yes, while most of Disney’s output had comic relief characters (not a departure from the norms of the time or from entertainment in general) and while some of them could be male, there are plenty of strong, heroic men/male figures as well. Prince Philip, Prince Eric, Aladdin, John Smith, Tarzan, Bagheera, Robin Hood; the list increases when you expand the list to include Disney’s non-animated features that started appearing in theatres in the Fifties.
I fiound it interesting that it was a recent film–Toy Story 3–that made Dr. Freeh and her husband boot the company from their home instead of one of the older movies. It makes me think that the real problem with the Disney Company is what it has become and not what it was when Disney started it.
Mr. Nathan Stone,
thank you for your insight.
Only the first Toy Story was watchable for me, and barely at that.
I would have preferred real actors playing with the animated characters !
The year Walt Disney passed away was a year of great cultural, social, political and religious turmoil.
The last one being fundamental, when the “God is dead” movement surged from inside The Church Herself.
Anton Szandor LaVey then seized the opportunity to proclaim the beginning of the satanist age, & founded his first satanist church of America in San Francisco.
Walt Disney’s departure was then timely, for him being spared the rising flood of filth, gradually engulfing his work.
It’s inaccurate to call them “children’s literature”. They are stories adults tell their children for whatever purposes. How about if we ask children to tell their stories? What would that literature look like?
Where do adults come from? Do children stay children?
C.S Lewis wrote in his essay “On Juvenile Tastes” that “Children are regarded as being a distinct literary species, and the production of books that cater for their supposedly odd and alien taste has become an industry; almost a heavy one.” Lewis believed (and he was not alone) that the distinction between ‘adult’ and ‘child’ was more porous than the psychologists and educational professionals of his time (or our time?) were willing to admit, and Lewis went on to say that apart from some issues of vocabulary and topic, “juvenile taste is simply human taste,” and that children simply “select…that minority of books which happens to suit them, as a foreigner in England may select those English dishes which come the nearest to suiting his alien palate,” which is hardly different from how adults choose their own books and stories.
For those wondering what movies to show children rather than Disney, get a subscription to one or two filtering services (Vidangel, Pureflix, etc.), and take your pick! This opens up “A Whole New World” (sorry) of options. We’ve recently watched The King’s Speech, Searching for Bobby Fisher, and Back to the Future with filters in place.
— Mom of 8
In Defense of Toy Story 3, I published a review about 10 years ago on how the film uses (whether the producers recognize it or not) J.R.R. Tolkien’s concept of “eucatastrophe.” The mythopoetic idea comes from Tolkien’s essay “On Fairy Stories” where he argues that the “eucatastrophic tale is the true form of fairy-tale, and its highest function”; therefore, if you watch Toy Story 3 with this in mind, you can easily see that eucatastrophe themes, “however wild [their] events, however fantastic or terrible the adventures,” are woven into this Pixar film. I’m not sure why we are criticizing the movie, but I think it deserves a second look.
PS: Indeed, both Tolkien and Lewis did profess a slight dislike for Disney films (though Lewis apparently did not object enough to Snow White to keep him from paying to see Bambi with his brother Warnie); however, Tolkien’s and Lewis’s mild dislike for Disney productions had to do with these films being popularly ‘vulgar’ (i.e., catering to unsophisticated mass appeal) rather than any moral objections as Dr. Freeh seems to imply.
Lewis’ opinion on Snow White was mixed–he disliked the buffoonish portrayal of the dwarves, thought the Wicked Queen was a near-perfect representation of the archetype, and praised the moment where the eyes in the forest are revealed to be Snow White’s animal friends.
Hi Matthew: That is interesting! I did not know Lewis’s thoughts on the Queen, though it does not suprise me. Can you point me the essay or letter where Lewis expresses this? I’m organizing some research for a future book about Lewis and children’s entertainment.
Chad,
You’ll find all three thoughts expressed in his Preface to Paradise Lost, Chapter 8, “A Defense of This Style.”
Matthew: I found it! Thanks!
My favorite Disney film, thematically and artistically, is Sleeping Beauty. Humorous too, right to the last scene. Though not a multi-dimensional character, the prince displays the virtues of courage and fortitude. Surprisingly, his shield bears a cross. And unlike the subsequent Disney live-action film, Malificent was evil because she made consciously evil choices, not because she was persecuted or misunderstood.
My favorite Disney film, thematically and artistically, is Sleeping Beauty.
You are a person of taste and wisdom.
Walt Disney passed away in 1966.
The company then began to be gradually steered into the politically correct end product
we see today.
The only thing positive about the unspeakable abomination of the visual obscenity
that is “Maleficent”, is that it doesn’t even hypocritically try to be subtle :
Young Maleficent right from the beginning is shown sporting horns & serpent’s eyes.
Not exactly symbols of benevolence.
Respected fellow posters and readers of this article,
I refer you to :
1_ Richard Schickel’s 1968″The Disney Version”.
Mr. Schickel was in charge of the movie department of LIFE Magazine …
And
2_ Armand Mattelart’s & Ariel Dorfman’s
1971″How To Read Donald Duck – Imperialism In The Disney Comics”.
Comrades Mattelart & Dorfman are European writers and playwrights,
members of the Chilean communist party.
Their book was 1st published in Spanish, & had a very big success in Latin America
where whatever unmitigated hatred of everything American is fashionably the norm.
Respected readers of this article,
I recommend you three Old Disney short animations :
1_ “Broken Toys” from Disney’s Silly Symphonies.
2_ “Pluto’s Judgment Day” from Mickey Mouse.
3_ “Hawaiian Birds” from Silly Symphonies.
And from Hanna & Barbera who were Disney-formed :
“The Night Before CHRISTMAS” a Tom and Jerry cartoon.
A lot of wisdom here. I’m curious about Grimm’s tales. They were collected traditions and folk lore long before and I can’t help but wonder if they may have been used to teach children.
The picture from Once Upon a Time (TV series) is what originally caught my eye. My family and I had been watching it well into the second season when I eventually recognized it was extremely feminized. Although it was clean in terms of language and innuendos, it came to me that the leaders, both good and bad were all women and that the male character, Prince Charming always acting out of impulse and his emotions, and was not only submissive to Snow White, but was unable to make any rational decisions without her help. The same could be said of Rumpelstiltskin, who was marked decisively as unvirtuous, being led by his whims.
We’ve pretty much dropped off the mainstream diet. It just became too much for me to suffer my family to endure the anti-traditional values which made our country great.
I’ve grown increasingly dissatisfied and leery of Disney — even old Disney — over the years for some of the reasons you mentioned here. If I had to pick three essential problems, it would be these: 1) Disney presents a fundamentally fatherless worldview, and Disney men are either grasping protectors (if fathers,) mischievous boy-men, or, if noble gentlemen (like Mufasa) destined to die early, 2) Related to the first, Disney character arcs and plots are melodramatic rather than dramatic; that is, they do not involve a protagonist confronting a problem/quest “out there,” the encounter and confrontation of which requires the protagonist the confront reality, shape, and be shaped by it, and therefore change into something better; rather, the Disney protagonist is already special, and her hopes and dreams involve reshaping the external world to reflect her inner desires. Even the mountains, oceans, or forests before which she sings of her wants are mere props for the actualization of her ego. Everything outside is sacrificed to the “inner person” who is already wonderful. 3) Consequent of the former, Disney invariably flattens every story, and “buffonizes” anything sublime.
That is why every Disney property, including its acquired IPs (Marvel and Star Wars) eventually gets this flattening, egoistic reductionist treatment. (And yes I know there are partial exceptions, but they are mostly Pixar.)