I believe what Giroux is saying is true. Like how Shrek is a metaphor for how ugly people should only marry ugly people, so thank God Fiona changed back into a disgusting ogre, so Shrek and she could be happily married. Right?
Wrong! This kind of pyschological "let-me-destroy-something-pure-so-I-can-look-pensive-and-intelligent" nonsense has gone too far. They are trying to mess with Disney. You don't do that.
Giroux echos the same sick teenagers who see a part of male genitalia within the Little Mermaid's castle (upside-down of course). You see what you want to see. Perverts look for something to laugh at, they found it. Giroux looked for controversy, he found it.
Within the middle paragraph on page 574, Giroux says that "Disney's films offer children oppurtunities to locate themselves in a world that resonates with their desires and interests...At the same time, these films are often filled with contradictory messages." No, no, no. Maybe to you, Mr. Giroux, with your Ph.D. from Carnegie-Mellon and your thirty+ years of analyzing the media's affect on culture. But not to an outspoken, freespirited five year old who saw the Little Mermaid as a chance for her to marry a Prince, even if she was a little different than everyone else.
Oh, sorry I didn't put this in here. I knew he got his Ph.D. from Carnigie Mellon because of his website:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.henryagiroux.com/
I really enjoyed reading your post because of how passionate you are about Giroux's view of Disney. Also, I completely agree with what you are saying with regards to the fact that Giroux specifically targeted Disney and had to go out and look for the bad in the timeless classics we all love. I also think Giroux's point would've have been made stronger had he not come right out and attacked Disney the way he did in his writing. If he would've given Disney a chance by pointing out more of the good things that Disney displays, his argument would have been more effective overall. Rather, all he does is upset his audience, causing them to almost completely disagree with him.
ReplyDeleteI like the emotion you put in this. The comment you posted was different, it really attacked Giroux. You stay on tract and argue against how there is ignorance in Giroux's claims. It is also valid to say that children cannot comprehend the perceptions of racism and sexism that are in Disney movies. Looking "for controversy" happens with all things, and Disney is not an exception to the rule. With going back and looking at his website for further knowledge you have credibility in your argument.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do agree that many of Giroux's arguments were nitpicky, I think that he has a point with Shrek and Fiona. I've watched different experiments on t.v. that showed how people tend to partner up with people they believe are equally attractive as they see themselves. I remember watching Shrek in theaters. Before I found out about Fiona's transformation, I remember thinking about the likelihood that her and Shrek would work out in a real life scenario. Disney likes to present controversy free story lines and by turning Fiona into an ogre, the writers kept viewers, like myself, free of distracting thoughts and able to focus on a believable story line.
ReplyDeleteI really liked reading your response, especially because you talk about more than simply what we had to read. I think the parallel you drew to the Little Mermaid and the house in the movie and the way you said "Perverts look for something to laugh at, they found it. Giroux looked for controversy, he found it" was very clever. It is very effective to reference a page in the reading and explain it, as you did when talking about despite allowing children to "locate themselves in the world", Disney movies offer contradicting messages. You tied your ending together nicely when you talked about how Giroux's belief, due to his years of studies, differs from young children, and it is very nicely said; I agree very much with what you're saying.
ReplyDelete