Should old Disney movies be banned in the era of #MeToo??

Emiliano Old-fashioned Crap wrote: »

Yeah, that's the real problem with them.

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

'Manspreading' - which is definitely a thing - stems from an unholy combination of overconfidence, entitlement and self-importance, I think. I see it on public transport every day - more often than not, I find that the perpetrators are middle-class and middle-aged. They tend to have loud phone conversations too because... nobody else matters.

Perhaps as a side-effect of #MeToo, women will become more confident and more likely to take 'ownership' of public spaces too. I hope not, tbh.

Zorya wrote: »

And those old fairy tales are takes on archetypal myths that have passed down through human history. The takes vary over time, but the archetype remains there - the dark and light forces in the psyche etc.If people are worried about a certain generations take on the archetypes, why not reinterpret them. They have the cash to do those kind of things. But they seem to love whining. And they are used as well, as faces for movements. That poor used to be Hermione Granger girl has been turned into a fecken eegit by her handlers trying to be so right on.

Themes

Multiple reviewers and commentators have opined that an early scene in the movie, in which Stefan drugs Maleficent and removes her wings from her unconscious body, is a metaphor for rape. Hayley Krischner of The Huffington Post interpreted the scene as an important reference to rape culture: "This is the horrific side of rape culture. We're so enmeshed in it that it's impossible to ignore a metaphoric rape that occurs in a Disney movie". She went on to praise the film for giving a positive and hopeful message to rape victims, ultimately allowing "the woman to recover. It gives her agency. It gives her power. It allows her to reclaim the story". Monika Bartyzel of The Week noted the scene's implications in her review: "In its first act, Maleficent offers a dark, surprisingly adult exploration of rape and female mutilation". However, Bartyzel went on to opine that the film portrayed Maleficent's actions as "a rape revenge fantasy" and criticized the film for not following through on its early subtext, ultimately calling it less feminist and reductive compared to its 1959 counterpart: "In Maleficent, Aurora is the product of a cold and loveless marriage and a vengeful, unhinged rapist. Her safety relies on a trio of clueless and dangerously careless fairies, and her Godmother is the woman who cursed her—and who had, in turn, been violated by her own father". Angelina Jolie addressed the issue during an interview with BBC Radio 4 on the Woman's Hour programme and claimed that the subtext was intentional: "The question was asked: 'What could make a woman become so dark and lose all sense of her maternity, her womanhood, and her softness?' [...] We were very conscious, the writer and I, that [the scene] was a metaphor for rape". She further explained that the answer to the question "What could bring her back?" was still "an extreme Disney, fun version [of the story]", but "at the core it is abuse, and how the abused then have a choice of abusing others or overcoming and remaining loving, open people".

Jordan Shapiro of Forbes argued that the film's main subtext was the detrimental effects of ultimatums between capitalist and socialist societies. He pointed out that the Moors represented a socialist, nature-oriented, democratic society while the human kingdom was one of capitalism, industry and absolute monarchy. Shapiro further commented that the character of Stefan, his theft of the Moors' riches (the jewel) and his mutilation of Maleficent's wings for the sake of his ambition were references to the American Dream. He conceived the wing-tearing scene as "a social commentary that any hierarchical rise to power inherently happens through the exploitation of others", explaining that it was the reason why "without her wings, Maleficent also becomes an oppressive ruler of the Moors. Everything she represents, believes and stands for has been grounded", and "like most victims of oppression", "she takes it out on those who are smaller and weaker". He concluded that through the merge of the two kingdoms at the end of the film, it sought to weave together capitalism and socialism and let go oppositions: "It is time to leave the kingdom of familiar partisan oppositions: let's replace either/or with neither/nor or both/and".

average_runner wrote: »

In fairness Little mermaid should be banned as Ariel was pretending to be a female human and taking advantage of Eric. This is an absolute disgrace.