De-Disneyfying Disney o 17
men's rights in women's sexual and reproductive capacities and reinfoices
2 Although one could (and perhaps should) consider Georges Méliés, who ptoduced highly inno-
De-Disneyfyi"g Disney: Notes on the
Development of the Fairy-Tble Film
Indeed, there was something aríogant about the waythe studio took over these
works |Alice in Wonderland and Peteí Patlf . Grist for a mighty mill, they were,
in the ineffable Hollywood term, "properties" to do with as the proprietor of
the machine would. You could throw jarring popular songs into the brew, you
could gag them. up, you could sentimentalize them. You had, in short, no
obligation to the originals or to the cultural tradition they represented. In fact,
when it came to billing, |. M. Barrie's Peter Pan somehow became Walt
Disney's Peter Pafi, and Lewis Carroll's Alicebecame Walt Disney's Álice. It
could be argued that this was a true reflection ofwhat happened to the worla
in the process of getting to the screen, but the egotism that insists on making
another man's work your own throu8h wanton tampering and by advertising
claim is not an attractive form ofegotism, howevet it is rationalized. And this
kind of annexation was to b a constant in the later life of Disney. The only
defense that one can enter for him is that of invincible ignorance: he really
didn't see what he was doing, didn't knowhow some people could be offended
by it, and certainly could not see that what was basically at fault was his
insistence that there was only one true style for the animated film-his style.
Richard Schickel, The Dbney Yersiotfs
As the studio most associated with manufacturing "family entertainment,"
Disney was a master at fostering and responding to this legitimating ide-
ology of domestic amelioration. Certainly the theme pervades all of Disney's
enterprises from Snop White on, but the insistence on the definition and
containment ofthe adolescentwoman is nowhere stronger and nowhere more
specifically yet subtly articulated th an il Peter Pan. Feminists like Chodorow
attribute this attitude to the general condition ofpatriarchy 'Men's location
in the public sphere, then, defines society itself as masculine. It gives men
power to create and enforce institutions ofsocial and political control, impor-
tant among these to control marriage as an institution that both exPíes es
these rights.'Fewwould question that Disneyintended the studio to function
a ju t such a controlling institution, But the more historically interesting
guestion is, Why did this unusually strong in istence occtrr when it did?
Donald Crafton, "The Last Night in the Nursery:
Walt Disney's Peter Pat'36
vtíve féeries atthe end of the nineteenth century, as the founder and pioneer of the fairy-tale fllm,
it is Walt Disney who became king of the fairy-tale films in the twentieth century, and though dead,
his ghost still sits on the throne and rules the realin. Not only did Disney dominate the field of
anirnated fairy-tale films, but many if not most of his live-action films foliowed the format that he
developed for his animated films--a conventional reconciliation of conflicts and contradictions
that engenders an illusion of happiness, securiry and utopianism. Natural}y, Disney did not do
this by himself. He hired and organized gifted artists, technicians, and collaborators, not unlike
the industrious virtuous seven dwarfs, who adapted fairy tales for the cinema by creating extra-
ordirrary cartoons and also developed the animated feature fairy-tale film in Disney's name so that
his productions effaced the names of Charles Perrault, the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian
Andersen, and Collodi and became synonymous with the term fairy tale. There is scarcely an adult
or child born in the twentieth century who, in the western world, has not been exposed to a Disney
fairy-tale film or artifact. Our contemporary concept and image of a fairy tale have been shaped
and standardized by Disney so efficiently through the mechanisms of t}re culture industry that
our notions of happiness and utopia are and continue to be filtered through a Disney 1ens even if
it is myopic. It seems that myopia has come to dominate both reality and utopia, thanks to
Disneyfication, or that we are conditioned to view reality and fairy tales through a myopic pseudo-
utopian lens.
Despite the domination of the fairy-tale film by the Disney Cotporation, however, it woulcl be
misleading to consider the Disneyproductions as constituting a monopoly of fairy-tale films, oí that
they have totally twisted our views of reality and utopia, for there have always been competing films
that offer a different vision of fairy tales and social conditions. As Pierre Bourdieu has made
abundantly clear in The Field of Culural Production, culture is constituted by different fields of
production in which conflicting foíces enteí into a dialogue, often antagonistic, and seek to gain
proper recognition and a stronghold for their views and beliefs in the field, and though the Disney
fairy-tale films have been dominant throughout the twentieth century they have never been without
opposition. In fact, with the rise of filmmakers like Hayao Miyazaki, Michel Ocelot, Jan Svankmajer,
Michael Sporn, David Kaplan, Matthew Bdght, Guillermo del Toro, Tim Burton, Tarsem Singh,
Arrna Melilqran, yim pil-sung, and many others in the late twentieth and early twenty-first
centuries, it appears that the fairy-tale film may eventually become de-Disneyfied. But before I
explain what I mean by de-Disneyfication, I want to comment on the evolution of the fair7 tale from
t}re oral to the cinematic, how this genre has expanded and morphed into the dominant form of
fairy-tale 6lm, and why the conflict in the cultural freld of cinematic production is so signficant.
Theses
l ) The fuiry tale began hundreds if not thousands of yeaís ago a an oral form of storytelling created
by adults, who told all kinds of tales in diverse settings in which adults determined the forms and
contents. They told tales to communicate important information, and metaphor was highly
significant in disseminating knowledge. The fairy tale was never a genre intended for children-and

18 l Partl
it is still not a genre for childrerr. With the advent of the printing press in the fifteenth century,
writers gradualiy began to record and publish the oral forms ofstorytelling in print directed mainly
at aduli reading audiences. Adults have never stopped reading, producing, re-inventing, and
experimenting with fairy tales.
2) It was not until the nineteenth century that the fairy tale was cultivated a genre and social
institution for chi]dren in the westem world and mainly for children of the upper classes. Notions
of elitism and christian meritoclary, along with the medieval notion of "might makes right,"
became staples ofthe stories, and a select canon oftales was established for the socialization ofthe
young, geared to children who knew how to read. These notion aíe easily recognizable in most
ofthe classical tales, especially those written by Haus Christian Andersen, who had become one of
the most popular writers in Europe and America during the nineteenth and earlY twentieth
centuries. The emphasis was on extraordinarily gifted individuals who owed their rise in fottunes
to God's benevolence or miracles of destiny represented metaphorically through the intervention
of a fairy or Powerful magical people and objects. Another a Pect that appealed to children and
adults was the Richatd Whittington/Horatio Alget attitude that encoulaged taking advantage of
opportunities and pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps. Although the fairy tale was altered to
.áá.ess the adult views of what a child shoutd read, it was still read vastly by adults. Adults and
children of the lower classes could not read these tales, but th y circulated them in the oral tradition
and in popular theaters.
r) Despite the rise ofprint materials, the fairy tale continued to be told widely throughout the
western world for all qpes of audiences, and by the end of the nineteenth century in Ámerica and
Great Britain, professional folklore societies were formed, and hundreds of collections of folk and
fairy tales were produced in all the major European languages. One major purpose wa to píeserve
the oral traditions (songs, tales, proverbs, legends, and so on) from folk cultures all over the world
by printing them. At the same time the printed fair7 tale with pictures gained more legitimacy
and enduring value than the oral tale which "vanished" soon after ii was told, unless recorded or
written down. On the positive side, numerous educated Europeans and Americans made a dedicated
effort to be tíue to the spirit or e ence of the tales in their transcriptions, even though they
were handicapped by the lack of adequate technology. On the negative side, many folklorists or
transcribers regarded their informants and the people to whom the tales belonged more or less as
primitives. What was considered essential to their world views and life styles by the different ethnic
groups who used the tales to relate to one another was often viewed by the foreign transcriber as
quaint, fantastic, and supernatural. Consequentln pre erved oral tales were often revised, stylized,
and censored to suit the Christian and middle-class ideology of the collectors and writers. Much
of the collecting and preserving was completed at the beginning of the twentieth century in Great
Britain and the United States during a period of western imperialism. It was only after World War
II that a shift in the ideology ofcollectors and translators took Place with more respect shown to the
indigenous populations.
+j By the end ofthe nineteenth century and beginning ofthe twentieth century, the fairy tale was
often read by a parent in a nursery, library, school, or bedroom to entertain and to soothe a child's
anxieties because the fairy tales for children were optimistic and had plots with closure, that is, with
a happy end. Fairy tales were among the first hort narratives to be adapted as plays specificallY for
children and to be performed by adults and children and staged in the United States, Great Britain,
and other European countries. In addition, they were read to children by librarians and teachers
and made their way into school primers, Significantly, L. Frank Baum published his famous fairy-
tale novel, The Wonderful Wizaril of oz in 1900, and I. M. Barrie ptodlced Peter Pain in 1904 and
had tlre character of Peter ask his adult audience whether they believed in fairies to save Wendy's
life, and the audience responded with a loud vocal YES!
:]l
!":,
De-Disneyfying Disney e 19
5) By the beginning ofthe twentieth century, the western classical fairy tales became established
memetically as a canon and were disseminated through all forms of the mass media including books"
postcards, newspapers, jourrrals, radio, and film. The major tales were and still are: "Cirrderella"'
"Little Red Riding Hood," "Snow White," 'Sleeping Beauty," "Bluebeard," "Hansel and Gretel,"
"The Frog Prince," "Rapunzel," 'Rumpelstiltskin," "Donkey Skin," "Tom Thumb"' "The Ugly
Duckllhg," "The Little Merrnaid," "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin"' "A_li Baba and the Forty
Thieves," "Jack and the Beanstalk," and some other variants ofthese tales.
6) Although the plots varied and the themes arrd characters were altered, tlre classical fairy-tale
naííative for children and adults reinforced the patriarchal symbolical order based on rigid notions
of sexuality and gender. The types of characters, based on real professions, family figures, social
class-often ter otypes, not archetypes-depicted in printed and staged versions of fairy tales
tended to fo1low schematic notions of how young men and women behaved and should behave.
Though somewhat of a simplification, mo t of the heroes are cunning, fortunate, adventurous,
handsome, and daring; the heroines are beautiful, passive, obedient, industrious, and self-sacrificial.
Though some are from the lower classes and though the theme of "rags to riches" plays an impoítant
role, the peasants and lower-class figures learn a cefiain Habitus,what Pierre Bourdieu describes as
a set of rnanners, customs, normative behavior, and thinking, that enab]es them to fulfill a social
role, rise in socia] status, and distinguish themselves according to conventional social class and
gender expectations. The goal-oriented narrative ofa classical fairy tale generally involves trans-
formation oftlre major protagonist only to reinforce the social and political status quo. Implicit in
the reconciliation of conflict is moral improvement. Evil is cleansed.
7) In printed form the fairy tale immediately became píoperty (unlike the oral folk tale) and was
regarded as a fixed text written by an author as proprietor. It was sold and marketed, and property
rights were granted authors, collectors, and publishers. Wlren bought, it could be taken by its "new"
owner and read by its owner at his or her leisure for escape, consolation, or inspilation. An oral tale
that once belonged to a community was gradually lifted from its context and deprived of its
"original" social meaning and relevance. It is often difficult to establish the origilrality ofa tale, but
it is possible to study the process of expropriation and appropriation by tracing the histories of a
particular tale as discourse with numerous variants. The oral tradition often takes revenge on the
printed tradition by re-appropriating what has been stolen and expropriated from its culture.
8) Tlrere was always tension between the literary and oral traditions. The oral tales continued arrd
continue to threaten the more converrtional and classical tales because they can question, dislodge,
and deconstruct the wTitten tale and published texts. Moreover, within the literary tradition itself,
there were numerous writers in the late nineteenth century such as Clrarles Dickens, George
MacDonald, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Laurence Housman, Edith Nesbit, and even L. Frank
Baum, who questioned the standardized model ofwhat a fairy tale should be.
9) It was through script by the end of the nineteenth century that there was a full-scale debate
about what oral folk tales and literary fairy tales were and what their respective functions should be.
By this time the fairy tale had expanded as a high art form (opera, bal]et, drama) and low art form
(folk plan vaudeville, and parody) and a form developed classically and experimentally for children
and adults. The oral tales continued to be disseminated through communal gatherings ofdifferent
kinds, but they were also broadcast by radio and gathered in books by folklorist . Most ií poítant
in the late nineteenth century, as I have already mentioned, was the rise of folklore as an organized
field of study and inquiry along with anthropology. It became a social institution and various
schools of folklore began to flourish. There was hardly any literary criticism that dealt with fairy
tales and folk tales at thi time,
I0) Though many fairy-tale books and collections were illustrated, and some lavishly illustrated
in the nineteenth century the images were very much irr corríormity with the text. The illustrators,
20 o Part I De-Disneyfring Disney o 21
mainly male, were frequently anonymous and did not seem to count, Though the illustrations often
enriched and de pened a tale, they were moíe subservient to the text and rarely presented alternative
ways to read or look at a text. However, they clearly began influencing the way readers imagined the
characters and the scenes of the tale . The heíoin s were largely blonde and beautiful with perfectly
propoítioned features; the heroes were gallant, handsome, and courageous, often with sword in
hand and on a white horse. These illustrations, proliferated in the nineteenth century marked the
beginning of a major change for the fairy-tale genre.
1l) The domination of the printed word in the development of t}le fairy tale as genre undérwent
a momentous change in the 1890s and early part ofthe twentieth century. The next great revolution
in the institutionalization of the genre was brought about by the technological development of
film, for the images now imposed themselves on the text and formed their own text in "violation"
ofprint but also with the help ofthe print culture. This shift in adaptation offairy tales can be
viewed to a certain extent as the "incarnation" offairy tales. As Kamilla Elliott points out,
predicated on the Cfuistian theology of the word made flesh, wherein the word is only a
partial representation that requires incarnation for its fuIfillment, it makes adaptation
a píocess of incarnation from mofe abstract to less abstíact sigls. The words, which merely
hint at ight, sound, touch, taste, and smell, tantalize readets into longing for their incarnation
in signs offering more direct access to these phenomenological experiences.3?
And here is where first Georges Méli s, the great magician, who used mixed media to create his films
cal}ed, féeries, Percy Stow, Ferdinand Zecca, Albert Capellani, Arthur Melbourne Cooper, Ánson
Dyer, }. Searle Dawlen Chester and Sidney Franklin, Herbert Brenon, Walt Disney, and other
filmmakers enter the scene. They were among the fir t to realize how the fairy-tale genre might be
enriclred by frlm in unimaginable ways, and how frlm might be enriched by the fairy tale. In fact,
their visions of the fairy tale became realized beyond their wildest díeams.
Fairy-Tale FiIm Narrative
In my opinion, the classical fairy-tale narrative stamped film narrative and the canonical Hollylvood
narrative long before Hollywood even existed. I wou]d even argue that it laid the groundwork for
classical European fiIms, especially the melodramas. David Bordwell, one of the most astute film
critics on fiIm narrative, writes:
Of all modes, the classical one conforms mo t closely to the 'canonic story' which story-
comprehension researchers posit as normai for our culture. In fabula terms, the reliance upon
characteí-centered causality and the definition ofthe action as the attempt to achieve a goal
are both salient features of the canonic format. At the level of the syuzhet, the classical film
respects the canonic pattern of establishing an initial set of affairs which gets violated and
which must be then set right. Indeed, Hollywood screenplay lwiting manuals have long
insisted on a formula which has been revived in recent stluctuíal analysis: the plot consists of
an undisturbed stage, the disturbance, the strrrggle, and the elimination ofthe disturbance.
Such a syrrzhet Pattern is the irrheritance not of some monolithic construct called the
"novelistic" but of specific historical forms; the well-made play, the popular romance, and
crucially, the late-nileteenth-century short story, The draracters' causal interactions ale thus
to a great extent functions of such overarching syrrzhet/fabula patterns.38
It is a shame that Bordwell does not acknowledge the significance of the fairy tale for film
Darrative and the deep roots ofthe oral woncler tale and the literaryfairy tale that generatedtbe féaie
plays ofthe seventeenth century up through the nineteenth century. Nor does he cite the importance
of Georges Méliés, who was the prime 'appropriator" of tbe féerieíor the 6lm industry in its infaircy.
Though there are many different schemata and patterns of fairy tales that irrvolve normative ways
of producing and viewing films, the conventional fairy+ale plot as outlined by Vladimir Propp in
his famous book, Morpholog of the Folktalq seryes as a model for the commercial Hollywood films,
Early European melodramas, and the Disneyfied fairy-tale films. Propp outlined thirty_one basic
functions t}rat constihrte the formation of a paradigm, whiclr was and still is common in Europe
and Noíth America. Though I have some reservations about the validity of Propp's categories
because he does not discuss the social function ofthe oral wonder tale that engendered the literary
fairy tale or their diverse aspects, his struauralist approach can be helpful in understanding plot
formation and the teasons why certain tales have become so memorable. By functions, Píopp meant
the fundamental and constant components of a tale that are the acts of a character and necessary
for driving the action forward. The plot generally invoives a protagonist who is confronted with an
interdiction or prohibition which he or she violates in some way, Therefore, there is generally a
departure or banishment and the protagonist is either given a task or assumes a task related to the
interdiction or prohibition. The protagonist is assigned a task, and the task is a siga, That is, his or
her character will be stereotyped and marked by the task that is his or her sign. Names are rarely
used in a folk ot fairytale. Characters function according to their social class or profession, and they
often cross boundaries or transform themselves. Inevitably there will be a significant or signifying
encounter. Depending on the situation, the protagonist will meet either enemies or friends. The
antagonist often takes the form of awitch, monster, or evil fairy; the friend is a mysterious individual
or creature, who gives the protagonist gifts. Sometimes there are three different animals or cíeatures
who are helped by the protagonist and promise to repay him or her. Whatever the occasion, the
protagonist somehow acquires gifis that are often magical agents, which are needed in conflict and
can bring about a miraculous or marvelous change or transformation. Soon after the protagoníst,
endowed with gifts, is tested and overcomes inimical forces. Howwer, this is not the end because
there is generally a peripety or sudden fall in the protagonist's fortunes that is only a temporary
setback. A miracle or marvelous intervention is needed to reverse the wheel offortune. Frequentln
the píotagonist makes use of endowed gifts (and this includes magical agents and cunning) to
achieve his or her goal. The success of the protagonist usually leads to marriage; the acquisition of
money; survival and wisdom; or any combination of these three. Whatever the case may be, the
protagonist is transformed in the end. The functions form a transformation.
The sigrrificance ofthe paradigmatic functions ofthe wonder tale is that they facilitate recall for
tellers, listeners, and viewers. Over hundreds ofyears they have enabled peopie to store, remember,
and reproduce the plot ofa fairy tale and to change it to fit their experiences and desires due to the
easily identifiable characters who are associated with particular social classes, professions, and
assignments. The characters, settings, and motifs are combined and varied according to specific
functions to induce aonder and hope íor change in the audience of listenersheaders/viewers, who
are to marvel or admire the magical changes that occur in the course of events. It i this earthy,
sensual, and secular sense ofwonder and hope that distinguished the wonder tales from other oral
tales as the legend, the fable, the anecdote, the myth, and Biblical story; it is clearly the sense of
wonder tlrat distinguishes the litetary fairy tale from the moral story, novella, entimental tale, and
other modetn short literary genres, Wonder causes astonishment, and as marvelous object or
phenomenon, it is often regarded as a supeínatural occuírence and can be an omen or portent. It
gives rise to admiration, fear, awe, and reverence. In the oral wonder tale, we are to marvel about
the workings of the universe where anPhing can happen at any time, and these fortunate
aírd unfortunate eyents are neveí to be explained. Nor do the characters demand an explanation_
they are opportunistic and hopefirl. They are encoutaged to be so, and ifthey do not take advantage
of the opportunity that will benefit them in their relations with others, they are either dumb or
 22 c PartI
mean-spirited. The tales seek to awaken our regard for the miraculous condition oflife and to evoke
profound feelings of awe and respect for ]ife as a miraculous process, which can be altered and
changed to compensate for the lack of power, wealth, and pleasure that most people experience.
Lack, deprivation, prohibition, and interdiction motivate people to look for sigrrs of fulfillment
and emancipation. In the wonder tales, those who are naive and simple are able to succeed because
they are untainted and can recognize the wondrous signs. They have retained their be|ief in
the miraculous condition ofnature, revere natuíe in all its aspects. They have not been spoiled by
conventionalism, Power, or rationalism. In contrast to the humble characters, the villains are those
who use words and power intentionally to exPloit, control, transfix, incarcerate, and destroy for
their benefit, They have no Ie pect or consideration for nature and other human beings, and they
actually seek to abuse magic by preventirag change and causing everything to be transfixed according
to theií inteíest . The marvelous protagonist wants to keep the process ofnatural change flowing
and indicates possibilities for overcoming the obstacles that prevent othef charact ís or cíeatuíes
from living in a peaceful and pleasurable way.
In some ways, filmmakers are similar to fairy-tale protagonists in that they want to keep the
narrative tradition ofwondrous storpelling flowing. They are the champion tellers and projectors
offairy tales. Some do this by relying on the canonic mode oftelling and showing fairy tales as
Disney came to do. Others, fuily aware of the normative schemata of the canonical and/or classical
fairy tales, have sought to contest the norms and introduce alternative ways of employing and
visualizing fairy tales through film. Cornpeting variants offairy tales arose as soon as the tales began
circulating, and as culttrral fields ofstorpelling were formed thousands ofyears ago, there have been
conflicts over the bodies ofcanonical tales, how to tell them, and how to achieve a certain effect. Ás
we shall see in the course of conflicts, the Disney íairy-tale as commodified fiJm and book rose to
predominance in the twentieth century, but it was never the only narrative mode used by film-
makers to try to "capture" the essence offairy tales on frlm. The fairy tales and fairy-tale films have
formed specific discourses about the meanings of particular tales and general discourses about
the nature of storytelling. One thing is clear, however: frlm had a powerful impact on the oral and
print tradition offair7 tales and has made the conflict within the genre ofthe fairy tale more intense
and lively.
pectacle, Film Production, Disneyfication, and the Fairy Tale
By focusing on how the advent offilm technology changed the genre ofthe fairy tale, I am less
concerned with the techniques of filmmaking and scholarly approaches that focus on film history
and technology than I am with the issues of the adaptation and appropriation of the fairy-tale
genre, That is, my concern is with the evolution of a specific cultural genre that has been most
widely spread and promulgated through film, the mass media, and the Internet. The manner in
which we appreciate, evaluate, and disseminate our understanding of all kinds of art, especially
simple and short forms of fiction such as the mlth, the legend, the anecdote, and the fairy tale, has
undergone immense changes invoiving oraliry literacn and cinematography. Although all three
means of communication-oral, print, and cinematography-are often combined with sound to
convey a message and make an impression on our brains and imaginations, the image, moving arrd
still, particularly the cinematic, TV, and Internet image, has superseded the other means of
communication and conditions our perception of most art forms.
In the specific case ofthe fairy tale, I maintain that, throughout the world, in particular the wolld
of globalized capitalism, children and adults are more apt to be familiar with cinematic versions of
the fairy tale than they are with oral or printed ones. As Guy Debord has pointed out, we live in a
world ofthe spectacle that cause our lives to be mediated and determined by illusory irnages.
!l-
De-Disneyfyirrg Disney . 23
Debord explains that,"the spectacle is not a collection ofimages; íather it is a social relationship
between people that is mediated by images."39 In contrist to Walter Benjamin, who believed that
art in the age of mechanicai reproduction would lead to greater democratization and íteedorn
ofchoice in society througlr the film and other forms ofthe mass media, Debord argued along the
nes of Theodor Adorno's theses in his essay bn the culture indusiry to show how the dominant
mode ofcapitalist production employs technologr to alienate and standardize human relations.
In particular, he examined the totalitarian or totalizing tendencies of the spectacle or what he
called the spectacular, because the spectacle i constituted by signs ofthe dominant organization of
production and reirrforces behaviors and attitudes of passivity that allow for tlre justificatiorr
of hierarchical rule, the monopolization of the realm of appearances, and the acceptance of the
5futus quo. Onlyby grasping how the spectacle occludes our vision ofsocial relations will we be able
to overcome the alienation and separation that pervades our lives. Debord insisted that
by mearrs ofthe spectacle the ruling order discourses endlessly upon itselfin an uninterrupted
monologue ofself-praise. The spectacle is the self-portrait ofpower ií the age ofpower's
totalitarian rule over the conditions of existence. . . , If the spectacle-understood in the
limited sense of tiose "mass media" that are its mo t stultiffing superficial manifestation-
seem at time to be invading society in the shape of a mere apparatu, it should be
remembered that this apparatus has nothing neutral about it, and that it answers precisely
to th needs ofthe spectacie's internal dynamics. Ifthe social requirements ofthe age which
develops such techniques can be met only through their mediation, if the administra-
tion of society and all contact between people now depends on the intervention of such
"instant" comnrunication, it is because this "communication" is essentially one-wayi the
concentíation of the media thus amount to the monopolization by the administrators of tlre
existing system ofthe means to pursue their particular form ofadministration.a0
Debord did not be|ieve that the spectacle was impenetrable or that we all live irr a glass bubble
constructed by illusions. He wrote, as many critics have continued to wdt , to expose, contest, and
negate the predominance of the spectacle and the social organization of appearances. His concept
ofthe spectacle is particularly important for a critical understanding ofhow the fairy tale as frlm was
"spectacularized,'that is, howits signs and images were otganized to create the illusion ofa just arrd
lrappy world in which conflicts and contradictions would always be reconciled in the name of a
beautiful ruling class.
Almost all ofDisney's films operate according to the "laws" ofthe spectacle, They irnpose a vision
oflife, the better Life, on viewers that delude audiences into believing that power can and should be
entru ted only to those members of elite groups fit to administer society. All the major, animated
featureJength Disney fairy-tale fi|ms-Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (r%7) , Pinocchio (7940) ,
Cinderelln(1950), Alice in Wonderlnnd(I95I), Peter Pan (L953), SleepingBeauty (|959), The Sword
andthe Stone(1963),TheLittle Mermaid(|989), Beauty andtheBeast(I99|),Aladdin(1992), Mulan
(1998), The Emperor's New Groove (2000), Enchanted (2007), The Ptitlcess and the Frog (2009)-
follow conventional principles of technical and aesthetic organization to celebrate stereotypical
gender and power relations and to foster a world view ofharmony. The images, words, music, and
rnovement ]ead to a totalizing spectacle that basically glorifies how technology can be used to
aestheticize social and political relations according to the dominant mode ofproduction and ruling
groups that entertain a public spectatorship through diversion and are ent rtained themselves by a
monologue ofself-praise. There is virtually rro diffeíence in the "utopian" vision conveyed by these
films that celebrates the actual standardized mode of production in the Disney Studios, its
rationalization, hierarchn and purpose. What is interesting is that the scheme of tlre Disney filmic
narrative corresPonds to its mode ofproduction for the cinema.
24 l Partl
Let us examine Disney's eaíliest animated feature fairy-tale Íilm, Snor White and the Seyen
Dwatfs, a1nd aIatet one, Beauty afld the Beast, as examples. Each filrn is framed by a prince on a quest
for the proper mate, essentiallya young viíginal woman, a trophy píincess, who will serve his vested
interests, and the que t ends with a marriage in a splendid castle, in which the prince and princess
wil1 be attended by admiring ifnot obsequious servants. The manner in which the prince attains hi
goal depends on the collaboration ofthe underlings, the dwarfs and enchanted objects, and the
ingenuity and valor of this sympathetic prince. Songs are strewed along the plot as flowers to
enliven and brighten the action, ju t as comic gags are used to divert us from the serious nature of
the business at hand-luthless competition for power. But everyone knows his or her role, and t}reir
roles ale all geared to guaranteeing the happiness oftheir heroes, seeminglyborn to lead, take Poweí,
and to be admired, as fetishist objects. They will eventually reside in a palace, a utopian realm,
that few people are privileged to inhabit, unless you are one ofthe chosen servants. The goal is not
only a reconciliation ofconflict and the defeat of evil, but also acclamation ofthose who deserve to
rule by those who deserve to serve.
This crude, schematic description of how a Disney fairy-tale functions may appear to be overly
formulaic, but the formula holds true: with slight variations, it can be applied to almost all the
Disney fairy-tale films and the numerous live_action family fllms made by the Disney corporation
up through its recent /4u, Parody Enchanted (2oo7), a film that Preteods to change the Disney
model through burlesque and inane satire while pafldering to consumerism. The model of most
Disney films, even when they pay lip service to changing social and cultural values, reflects the actual
structure of the operations in a Disney studio that have not been altered all that much over time.
In tlre formative years ofthe Disney studio, those yeaís that deteímined the work principles, ethics,
and ideology, the guiding practices became set and were similar to other studios and corporations
that participated in establishing what Debord has described as "spectacular" relations that stem
from the mode of production and reification. Pictures and descriptions of the hierarchical
arrangements ia the Disney studios are widely known and widespread. By 1930 Disney had con-
solidated power in his studio so that he ruled without question, and he divided his workers
into sepaíate groups and dePartments who often worked side by side at desks, as though they
operated mechanically serving a conveyor belt in a factory. They were otganized according to theit
functions: cel painters, animators, musicians, gag men, storyboard producers, and directors. After
1935 Disney did not do any animating, composing, or screenplay writing and worked out ofhis
own personal ofhce. However, he supervised almost every film, large and small, and his decision was
the final decision for almost all the early ptoductions. To his credit, he sought out the very best
collaborators and rarely stinted when it came to improving the technical qualitF ofhis productions,
He also set the standard ofhard work and showed great attention to detail. Most ofall, he conceived
many of the ideas behind the films and decided what project would move forward and which
collaborators would work on a patticular píoject. If there was a vision in a Disney fairy-tale fiIm-
and his spirit lived on well beyond his death-it was a shared spectacular vision of efEciency,
exploitation, and expediency: how best to use a story to Píomote one's arti tic talents, make money,
market oneself, and promote a vision ofhow social telations should be ordered, The contents and
history ofthe fairy tale were only a pre-text, that is, they provided the materials to be appropriated
and adapted for production purposes that served market needs. Behind such purposes, of course,
was an ideology corrrmensurate with the capitalist mode of production and commodity fetistr.ism
that was intended to shape the vision ofaudiences so that they would want to see and constune mote
of the same.
Though it would seem that there is something utopiarr about the Disney vision of the world,
think,
one that was elaborated in collaboration with hundleds of mainly male artists, it is more apt, I
to talk about the degeneration of utopia in Disney's schemes for fairy-tale films and how his
De-Disneyfoing Disney o 25
corporation continued to cultivate it. Jan Svankmajer, the extraordinary Czech filrnmaker of
distubing fairy-tale frlms, once remarked,
Disney is among the greatest makers of "art of childíen." I have always held that no special
art for children simply exist , and what passes for it embodies either the birch (discipline) or
Iucre (profit). 'Art ofchildren" is dangerous in that it shares either in the taming ofthe child's
soul or the bringing up of consumers of mass culture. I am afraid that a child reared on
current Disn y produce will find it difficult to get used to more sophisticated kinds of art, and
will assume his/her place in the ranks ofviewers ofidiotic television setiais.al
But it is not orrlythe taming of the child's soul and the commodfication of children, and might
I add, adults, that con titute the degeneration of utopia in the fairy-tale films of Disney, but also a
carefully planned narrative that leads to the banalization of utopia. In one of the most significant
studies of Disneyland, Louis Marin explained that
the visitors to Disneyland are put in the place of the ceremonial storyteller. They recite the
mphic narrative of the antagonistic origins of societF. They go through the contradictions
whiie theyvisit the complex; they are led from the pirates' cave to an atomic submarine, from
Sleeping Beauty's castle to a rocketship. These sets reverse daily life's determinism only
to reafhtm i! but 1egitimated and justified. Their path through the park is the narrative,
recounted umpteen times, of the deceptive harmonization of contrary elements, of the
fictional solution to conflicting tensions. By "acting out" Disney's utopia, the visitor "realizes"
the ideology of America's dominant gíoups as the mythic founding narrative of their own
society,a2
Utopia, as most scholars from Thomas More to Karl Mannheim and Ernst Bloch have explained,
does not exist; it is litetally no place, and yet, numerous writers and artists have created and pro-
jected theit image ofutopia through their wor}s to offet an alternative to ttre existing state ofthings.
The fantastic images of utopia forge a space of play in which artists and writers experiment and
invite their readeís and pectatot to playwith the possibilities fofchanging social relations under
real conditions ofexistence. Utopia demands an ideological critique ofthe status quo without limits,
for the utopic knows no limits and offers no solutions or resolutions.
From the very beginning, however, Disney set limits on the possibilities ofutopia that laid oqt
a prescribed way of ordering the world and curbing the imagination. In fact, he sought to establish
ownership of utopia. But his theme parks and plans fot the perfect city were nothing but a con-
tinuation ofdegenerated notions ofutopia in the fairy-tale films, for like the narrative ofDisneyland
outlined by Marin, they lead the viewer on a quest that legitimates a reality of violence and injustice
by making it appear, through fixed stereotn>es and values fosteríng violence and exploitation,
that contradictions can be reconciled through a collective fantasy, namely the s ts of images that
constitute a Disney fairy-tale film. The telos of all Disney's fairy-tale films is to shape the vision of
the spectators so that they are convinced and believe ttrat they share in the values and accom-
plishments of the narrative, thus obviating any or all contradictions. The imagination of the
spectators is thus curbed by the calculations oí fantasy imposed by the frlm, and individual wishes
are denied ol caught in the snare ofthe fantasy, Ás Marin remarks,
this brings about a rather violent effect on the imaginary by fantasy. The other sicle of reality
is presented (Fantasyland is Disnds privileged place for this), but it emerges irr the form of
banal, rotrtine images of Disney's films. They are th bankrupt signs of an imagination
homogenized by the mass media. The snare I mentioned is the collective, totalitarian form
taken by the "imaginary" of a sociery blocked by its specular self-image. One of the essential
 26 o PafiI
íunctions of the utopic image is to make apparent a wish in a fee image of itself, in an image
that can play in opposition to the fantasy, which is an inert, blocked and recurrent image.
Disneyland is on the side ofthe fantasy and not on that ofa free or utopic representation.a3
If the Disney fairy-tale films constrain the utopic imaginary and fix our image of utopia through
hallucinatory images, they have done this througb the systematic dissemination of images in books,
advertising, toys, clothing, houseware articles, posters, postcards, radio, and other artifacts that have
mesmerized us into believing that the "genuine' fairy tale is the Disney fairy tale, and that the Disney
fairy tale promises to fulfrll what is lacking in our lives, to compensat for discomforting aspects of
social reality, and to eliminate social and class conflicts forev í. It plays pruriently upon the utopian
longings ofpeople by offerirrg and selling set images intimating that special chosen celebrities and
elite groups are destined to rule and administer just social codes that will make people happy and
keep them in their proper places. Nothing is gray in the coloted films of Disnen but the color
camouflages the black-and-white view ofgood and evil in the world.
The Disney world view conveyed through the fairy tale is not, however, limited to Disney
productions. In fact, most American fairy-tale films and many of th British and European as well
as }apanese are variants of the Disrreyfication process in the film industry. One need only view the
majority of the fiIms oftlre Faerie Tale Theatre produced by Shelley Duvall in the l980s or the
Cannon Movie series in the 1980s as well as the other numerous cheaply produced infantile films
shaped by a myriad of minor film studios to dumb down children and their parents as well to
understand how pervasive the Disneyfication ofthe fairy tale became in the twentieth century and
how the Disrrey influence continues into the tvyenty-first. Yet, we must never forget tha! just as drug
addicts can save themselves through detoxification programs, the fairy-tale film-and the fairy tale
in general-can save itself through de-Disneyfication programs, andperhaps we can also rescue
ourselves arrd restore our vision so we can play with the fairy tale and social reality on our own
terms.
The De-Disneyfrcation of Fairy-Tale Films
As I have aiready noted, the fairy tale began to be adapted in many different ways by íilmmakers
almost as soon as the movie camera was invented and put to use. Aside from the extraordinarywork
of Georges Mé]i s at the turn of the twentieth century, there were interesting experimental works
produced by É,mile Coh], Chester and Sid Franklin, |. Searle Dawlen Max and Dave Fleischer, Anson
Dyer, Paul Terry Tex Avery, and many others up through the 1930s, Most of the films were short,
five to ten minutes, and were produced to "warm-up" audiences, once feature films came into
existence. They were shown before the main feature and were intended to induce laughs through
the use ofunusual tlvists to the plots and hilarious gags. In America, the cartoon became the most
popular short in the cinema from 1930 through the l960s, when television more or less brought
about its demise in movie theaters.
Crucial for understanding the success and importance ofthe early fairy-tale cartoon is the gag.
As Norman Klein points out in his superb book, Seuen Minutes: The Life and Death of the Ameican
Animat ed Carto on (1993),
8a8s are more than random snatches of comic relief. They use the narrative code of late
nineteenth-century popular culture. They are fables about surviving in an industrial world
when the mind is still trapped inside a rural community (translated as the cartoon village
caught inside the motion-picture machine). A plot of this ort, fíactured by a variety of
gags, has a unity based on dialectical confusion. The potential for hazards is never resolved,
only examined, in chase after chase, disaster after disaster. Once again, the gag is similar to
rri
De-DisnefingDbney o 27
is
Modernist theories from the twenties, on narlatiye, on epic theater, or defamiliarization. It
tbe Theateí ofthe Ábsurd,aa
ofthe
Interestingly, Disneywas a master ofthe gags and the chase plot in almost all his cartoons
his Laugh_o_Gram fairy-tale fiIms \e displayed an unusul flare for the gag and anarchy.
1920s. In
For instance, il Puss in Boots ( 1922), the young man who becomes a toreador to win the princess
is assisted by the shrewd female cat to topple the king. The fairy tale of Charles Perrault is virtually
transformed into a íevolutionary gag with a young man from the folk overthrowin8 a popcorn-
atin8 king who is exposed as a bumpkin and not capable of controlling the youth that krrows
lrow io ose the latest teclrnology to triumph over a feudal world view that is out of date. There
were other anarchical live-action feature fairy-tale íilms in the l920s, influenced by vaudeville,
Chaplin, and other comedians, but theywere not very successful. Even the animated fai'ry-tale films
had diffrculry finding and holding a niche in the market because they were expensive to produce,
the
and because the cinema industry demanded quick and profitable releases. By the early 1930s
Disney studio had become the dominant producer of fairy-tale cartóons using voiceovers,
music, and Technicolor in stunning and adroit ways to set standafds for the other studios and to
prepare the way for production ofthe featureJength Snow White andthe Seven Dwarfsin 1937- The
reasons for the transformation ofthe fairy+ale cartoon aíe connected to the Great Depression
of 1929, the development of rationaiized workshops or studios influenced by Fordism, the inven-
tion ofTechnicolor and sound, and the political and cultural need, so it seemed, for stíong leadeís
and harrnonious living, In other words, the fairy-tale film was about to be domesticated in the
mid- 1930s. As Klein states,
a moral element is added to caítoons, which was relatively absent earlier. In order to add
moral instruction, cartoon studios tunred toward domestic melodrama, which also resembles
stories in live-action ciuema, and made primary use of fully animated faces and gestuíes. . , ,
The cartoon moved from vaudeville gags to movie melodrama, witlr cinematic references
added. Now, audiences could see more cartoons about troubled conscierrces that needed
mending. . . . Disney led the way in expanding personality animation to include melodrama.
In fact, even after cartoon melodrama was exhausted and was replaced by the hlper_chase
cartoon, by 1940, Disney htrng on. For another twenty-five years, that high seliousness rarely
left his wolk.as
In order to understand the significance of domestication and the high seriousness of Disney,
most critics have focused on Snow White (1937), but I believe with Klein that the Process started
much earlier and that there are three fairy-tale films which document the process of domestication
muchbetter: ThreeLixlePigs(1933),TheBigBadWolí(I934),aldThreeLittle Wolves(1936).Not
only did they perfect t}re gags by making them smoother and more didactic if not inane, but they
incorporated them in much better synchronization witlr the storyline and music than ever before
to bring about a fuller animation. As Michael Barrier has commented in his signíficant study,
Hollwooil Cartoons,
None ofthe cartoons released on either side of Three Little Pigs in the sprirrg and surrrmer of
1933 come close to matching it in that regard. , . , Fairy tales and anirnal fables were sturdier
raw material, and now that they weíe open to the Disney writers, there was no reason to hope
that more cartoons would capture what most distio gt:ished Th\ee Little Pigs fíom any cartoon
that had come before: its sense ofbalance and completeness.aó
Althoughitwouldbeánexaggerationtostatethatmostfairy-talecartoon upuntil 1933hadpaid
very little attention to the stoíyline and cont nts of the tale, it is clear that the emphasis had
 28 o Part I
Figure l approaches to animated fairy tales.In RedHot RidingHoodhebegins by having his characters (Red
Burt Gillett,
Big Bad Wolf
The
always been on producing as many jokes and gags for their own sake, whet}rer they fit the story oI
not, and on showing off the technical skills of the artists and cameramen. While the gags remained
important in Three Little Pigs, moíe attention was paid to strengthening the story by making careful
changes in the characterization ofthe wolf and tlre pigs, adding l1tics, and endowing the film with
a message that quickly captured the sentiments ofAmerican audiences in 1933. The appeal ofthe
film had a great deal to do with the Great Depression, poverty, and oppression, and how the story
emphasized overcoming the voracious evil wolf at the door of the }relpless pigs. It is thanks to the
oldest brot-lrer pig that the younger ones can sing "Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolí?" This ditty,
which became a national song, was repeated in the two sequels in which the big brotheí pig always
saves the day, It is through him that happiness is guaranteed and all conflicts are resolved. The house
as lrome sweet home, as a sacred place that is to be defended at all costs, is celebrated, just as the
big brother pig, whose industry, wisdom, orderliness, and strength are extolled as American values.
It did not matter to Disney and his collaborators that the country was falling apaít du to the
values that counted more-exploitation, misrnanagement, íuthles competition, violence, and
corruption-they saw more of a need to submit to the protection of the individual owner, big
brother pig. Though it may be stretching a point to compare this pig to the prince in Snow White
and the seyen Dwarfs, they do play similar functional roles in that they as stron8 admirable
characters provide the closure to the conflicts in the story and tidy up the mess that apparently
is caused by greed and voracity. The spectacular image of the strong rational leader as rescuer
concealed, ofcourse, the real causes ofantagonism and unhappiness in both the films and the social
situation of the audiences of those times, for one must always ask why the wolf is impoverished and
hungry and must resort to violence to survive, and why and how the pigs got their money and live
comfortably in their own homes that the wolf cannot afford. One must also askwhy little people are
silln stupid, and weak and cannot fend fo! thernselves.
Once the Disney images and plots were set by l937 and repeated throughout Walt's Lifetime, they
were not without their competition and opposition. For instance Max and Dave Fleischer produced
a number of controversial and hi]arious Betty Boop fairy-tale fiIms already in the early l930s, but
the most fascinating fairy-tale animatol was Tex Avery. Acknowledged as one of the most gifted if
not ptovocative animators ofthe golden age ofcartoons, Avery directed a good number offairy_tale
films for major fiim studios such as Warner and MGM and frequently undermined the studio
,itj!
De-Disneyfoing Disney o 29
Riding Hood, the wolf, and grandma) protest against repeating the same old story and compel the
diíector to change it. In Swing Shift Cinilerella the wolf chases Red Riding Hood across the credits
until the girl points out that he is chasing the wtong woman and should be pursing Cinderella. If
anyone can take credit for the term "fractured fairy taie," it should be Avery, for long before the
Rocky and Bullwinkle fractured fairytales, Averywas taking apart the traditional fairytale and using
motifs to delight audiences and un ettle the canonical tales. In Red llot RidingHoodand SwingShift
Cinderella, aside from the brazen erotic depiction ofthe young women, tlre major twist in the plot
involves sexy elderly women, the grandmother and the fairy godmother, who pursue the wolf, who
never loses his lustfirl and predatory desire for young women, The frank portrayal ofgender conflict
and sexual proclivities with open endings were unique in Avery's times and remain somewhat
urrique today. Ávery never made a feature-lengílr fairy-tale Íilm. The Fleischers made Mo, which
were disasters. All three animators-and there were many more as I shall show in the foIlowing
chapters-were important in the 1930s and 1940s, however, for demonstrating an alternative to the
dominant conservative trend of producing fairy-tale films represented by Disney.
By Disney, I am not refeíring just to the man, who was a genial entíepreneur, but to a coípoíate
manufacturing process that has continued well into the twenty-first century. A "good" example of
the products that have been issued since 2000 by the Disney Corporation is The Emperor's New
Groove (2000). It is truly a putrid and stale fllm filled with imitative gags and scenes reminiscent of
Tex Avery's cartoons. (Even Avery can be co-opted and commodiíied.) The plot is offerrsive: it
concerns a faux Inca emperor named Kuzco who is accidentally turned into a talking 1lama by his
conniving evil advisor, the witchlike Yzma, because Kuzco fires her. Kuzco himselfis a vain, despotic
hipster, perhaps a model for the 1990s Silicon Valley types, who tramples upon his people for his
own pleasure. However, he learns that he cannot survive without the help ofa kind peasant, Pacha,
whose village had been threatened by Kuzco, for the young emperor had ordered Paclra's village to
be destroyed so that he could build a luxurious summer home called Kuzcotopia a a gift to himself
for his eighteenth birthday. After numerous comic adventures, Pacha helps Kuzco regain his human
form and turn Yzma into a kitten and her dumb lover into a Boy Scout leader. And Kuzco, who
supposedly has learned how to become kind, builds his utopian ummer house on a hill facing
Pacha's village.
Figure 2
Tex Avery,
Swing Shift
cinderella
 30 l Part I

The sentimental music and tendency of the drawings irr each scene aíe intended to make tlre
audiences feel sorry for the wise-cracking Kuzco and also to identifi with the terrder-hearted sub-
missive Pacha. From an ideological perspective, the film is a disaster, for it displays outh Americans
in stereotypical forms and repeats the totalitarian mes age that almost all the Disney films have
conveyed sirrce their origin: the role ofthe peasants or little people is to help to reinstall kings,
emperors, queens, princesses, and other celebrities so that they can rule more graciously. But rule
they must and should, This is a stale message and a stale approach to fairy tales, and despite the
moderate commercial success of The Emperor's New Groole ald its television and DVD sequels, it
may not be able to withstand the de-Disneyfying opposition of frlmmakers, who seekto offer a fairy- 3
tale vision of the world that will enable audiences to thi k for themselves and to grasp the forces
that are degeneratirrg their utopian longings. As the recent Disney production, The Pincess and Georges Méliés:Pioneer of the Fairy-Tble
the Frog (2009) , shows, the Disney frlmmaker continue to produce for profit and the glor7 of the
corporate brarrd, while more interesting arrd vital fairy-tale films are receiving a great deal of
Film and the Art of the Ridiculous
attention.
About the same time that The Emperor's New Groovewas packaged for the market along with
all sorts ofbooks and articles to gain additional profit, the Shrek films and the Michel Ocelot and
Hayao Miyazaki animated fairy-tale films appeared and began earnestly challenging the Disney
reign, There were also several superb live-action films that made their mark in and beyond America.
This was only the tip of the iceberg. Actually, there were and are hundreds of fairy-tale films,
animated, ]ive-action, mixed media, and digital that offer diverse perspectives on storytelling Tlre divergerrce of the constructive and the mimetic, which no altwork can
and fairy tales. In the following chapters, I shall endeavor to paint a clear picture ofthe debates and resolve and which is virtually the original sin of aesthetic spirit, has its
conflicts over the fairy-tale film and whywe might see the world around us with more insight if we correlative in that elenent of the.ridiculous arrd clownish that even the most
took offour Disneyfied lerrses. significant works bear and that, unconcealed, is inextricable frorn their
significance. The inadequacy of classicism of arry persuasion originates irr its
repression of this element; a repression that art nrust mistrust. . . . [Th"
artwork's] ridiculousness is, however, also part ofa condemnation ofempirical
rationality; it accuses the rationality ofsocial praxis of lraving become an end
in itself and as such the irrational and mad reversal of mearrs irrto ends, The
ridiculousness in art, which philistines recognize better than do those who ate
naively at home in art, and the folly of a rationality made absolute indict one
another íeciprocally.
Theodor Adorno, Aesthetie Theorly'l

Aay discussion of the fairy-tale fiIm rnust begin with Georges Méliés,and any discussiorr of Méli s
mu t begin with understanding how he brazenly incorporated the ridiculous in his art not simply
to parody the classical structure and contents of the fairy taie but to broaden our curiosify about
the wonder and the enigma of the genre. In Adorno's brilliant assessrnent of the signifrcance ofthe
ridiculous in art, he claims that

tlre ridiculous, as a barbaric residuunr of something alien to form, misfires irr art if art fails to
reflect and shape it. If it remains on the level of the childish and is taken for such, it merges
with the calcllated fun ofthe culture industry. By its very concept, art implies kitsch, just
as the obligation it imposes of sublimating the ridiculous pre upposes educational and class
structure; f;n is art's punishment for tlris. All the same, the ridiculous elentents in artvyorks
are most akin to their intentionless levels arrd therefore, in great works, also closest to their
secret.{8

|1l,