While rereading the Zipes article "Breaking the Disney Spell," I was struck by the assumptions that are made about Walt Disney's personal character and motivation behind his works, as well as animators in general. Zipes states that early film animators had one purpose in their films: "to impress audiences with their abilities to use pictures in such a way that they would forget the earlier fairy tales and remember the images that they, the new artists, were creating for them." This statement disregards the creativity film animators used in this new area of filmmaking almost entirely. Zipes even goes so far to say that animators were trying to make themselves akin to a "demigod[s]." This theory is never backed up by any quotes or references to events however. There is no evidence that early film animators were actually trying to erase the cultural history of the oral traditions that they were recreating on film.
Also, every good storyteller changes the story in some way. This is how stories were passed on and changed througout histories, and through different cultures. Fairytales were adapted to suit the culture in which they were being told, and this same tradition happened in the early 1900s with filmmakers. It is unfair for Zipes to judge early animators so harshly - he insists that these filmmakers sought to "subsume" oral fairytales and literature as well. They could have just been putting their own spin on stories that they have heard many times, and possibly, many different versions. When Zipes analyzes Disney's influence on his early film Puss in Boots, he states that "it is clear that Disney sought to replace all versions with his animated version." This is not very clear to me and Zipes again provides no proof of this theory. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Disney definitely capitolized on the fact that he was creating a new version of a fairytale that he could turn into a huge money source. If he hadn't, then critics such as Zipes would probably be berating Disney for not grasping the "American dream" fully.
In summation, Zipes arrogant claims are not backed up by any evidence or explanation other than his own interpretation of a man's personality. Which to me, makes his criticisms on this subject quite starkly empty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was also struck by Zipes' seeming lack of evidence for his claims regarding the similarities between Disney's life and his films. While it seems plausible, I agree that Zipes needed to show the reader the specific ways in which Disney's films reflected his personal experiences. Many of Zipes' claims do seem to be rather one-sided and presented as fact, however I do not think that all his arguments are therefore false. I do think he provides some interesting insights into Disney's transformation of the fairy tales, even though some of his claims may be slightly presumptuous.
ReplyDelete