Damon Wilkins
ENGL 1302 : 1072
Images as Arguments
Lion King Essay
Over the past 70 years, Walt Disney Productions has produced animated feature films that have captured the heart and imagination of audiences of all ages through the magic of storytelling and imagery. Radical social shifts have occurred throughout these years and the social norm has not always been of the utmost benefit to all genders or racial creeds. To refute that these ups and downs have not been captured within some Disney animated classics, as in all others forms of literature and art, would be a misconception. In the essay “All’s Not Well in Land of The Lion King,” Margaret Lazarus is of the opinion that Disney’s latest incarnation continues to reinforce stereotypes present in its past animated features. Simply because Lazarus associates negative connotations with The Lion King does not mean that the film lives up to the social expectations she assumes upon it.
It cannot be assumed that the “dark, gloomy, and impoverished elephant graveyard” is the “ghetto” based upon the presence of bones, litter, and dark colored hyenas speaking with accents (Lazarus). The root of Lazarus’s argument boils down to traditional “good vs. bad.” The Pride Lands consist of the lion’s kingdom, which we see as being cheerful and full of life; while the elephant graveyard is the opposite (The Lion King). While I have done no extensive research, by nature, no elephant graveyard will ever be cheerful or full of life but rather full of bones and dismal by the presence of death. Elephant graveyards are where elephants go to die, thus explaining the presence of hyenas with their grave scavenging tendencies (Hyena, Wikipedia). Why are the hyenas not present within the Pride Lands? Despite the assertion by Lazarus that “this is not a story about animals”, the fact of the matter is that hyenas and lions are both hunters, thus they fight by nature quite similarly as in the film (2). I would argue that the competitive nature between these two types of hunters necessitates that hyenas not speak with the same accent as do lions. The argument that Shenzi speaks in a “clearly inner-city dialect” holds even less merit seeing as the entire cast of voices for the film is full of various ethnic groups, most of which could arguably be considered to not speak in sterile, monotone voices (Lazarus). Often the environment in which one spends the majority of time has a profound effect upon one’s character, so it follows that residence in an elephant graveyard is not likely to produce rosy, cheerful dialect. The setting of the elephant graveyard should only be taken at face value rather than ascribed a demeaning reference because of perceived similarities.
Additionally, it cannot be assumed that “women’s subordinate status” is reinforced simply because the lionesses never question serving Scar while seeming to “passively await salvation” (Lazarus). The Lion King would have been an awfully short and boring story had the lionesses asserted their women’s rights and overthrown the oppression of Scar and the hyenas. But wait! Although this is just an animated story, some overly active viewers might conclude that the women in pretend lioness suits are overly docile in the face of evil. I’d like to counter this argument with the notion that not everything under the sun revolves around human conceptions of social relations. No, sometimes animals are just the animals they are meant to portray; sometimes stories do not revolve around negativity prevalent in human society. Let us relate comparable qualities of both human and lion social structures. First, let us consider humans: In the past, female humans were often considered subordinate to that of male humans. While this is not as much of an issue in the present, the issue still surfaces nonetheless. Now, let us consider lions: When a new male (or coalition of males) takes over a pride and ousts the previous master(s), female defenders are rarely successful because remaining top male cubs are often killed (Lion, Wikipedia). It would seem that the nature of the lioness is to yield to the new master(s) as a result of the death of the male cub. This scenario seems vaguely familiar from the film (The Lion King). The point that the lionesses are indeed not human women in disguise is further strengthened upon Simba’s return when the lionesses help with the rebellion. The lionesses acting as lionesses act in no way alludes to the reinforcement of female human’s subordinate status within human society.
The message of The Lion King interpreted by Lazarus as “only those born to privilege can bring about change” has no basis in fact simply because the first born male returns to reclaim power (2). Not only is the logic of this assertion faulty; the telling of the story disproves it. For instance, does not Scar himself bring about change with the death of Mufasa? Scar was not born to power yet, once Mufasa is dead, he assumes power over the Pride Lands. The story may not have ended with Scar or the hyenas still in power but they certainly facilitated change through the transformation of the once regal land to barren ruins reminiscent of the elephant graveyard (The Lion King). It almost seems as if Lazarus has it in for the genre of animated children’s stories! The idea that such a negative theme must be brought into the story tells volumes about Lazarus in that she resents her inability to bring about change herself. Alas, we all have issues but that doesn’t make it right for us to impose our opinions and beliefs upon what we can only assume to understand. Lazarus should not judge lest she be judged. If change only occurred through Simba’s ascension to the throne, her argument may have had merit but that is obviously not the case. Had Lazarus refined her semantics of the word change, it may have been possible to for her present a logical argument along the lines only those born to privilege can bring about positive change but she presented no such argument and such an argument would still have been far from bulletproof while still irrelevant to the movie. While entitled to her opinions, Lazarus should have kept personal beliefs out of her overall assessment of the film because the film is neither about privilege nor change.
I do not believe that The Lion King is deserving of the harsh judgment that Lazarus inflicts upon it in her essay. I feel that Lazarus has transposed her concerns and worries regarding society upon the film in an attempt to feel justified and somehow explain the cause for problems in our society. While I agree that major social issues need to be addressed in the world today, animated feature films like The Lion King are not the cause of these injustices. Lazarus’s concerns that the imagery contained within the film is detrimental to children and their future social and personal relations are not valid. Despite assumed negative social connotations, I do not feel that The Lion King will negatively affect future generations.
Works Cited
“Hyena.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyena Ref. grave scavenger
Lazarus, Margaret. “All’s Not Well in Land of The Lion King.” 1994. 1-2
“Lion.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion Ref. female defenders
The Lion King. Dir. Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff. DVD. Walt Disney Pictures. 1994