Comment by guiriduro
5 years ago
Not to denigrate the fine work of many great animators and storytellers, but the missing element from this Disney filmmaking story is also the worst part of Disney: its commercial and political choices over why films get made and stories bent and subjects avoided and to what end and whose benefit. Tell that story.
Many of us, or most of us, are probably not sure what you’re referring to, so it might be more useful to offer some focus to your argument rather than the vague suggestions you’re making.
Disney make films - as part of a filmmaking process we might want to know why they make film X and not Y, why they depict characters a certain way and not others. Are filmmakers limited or directed in any way? Enquiring minds would like to know. Presumably if you were to view Soviet or Nazi propaganda films, you wouldn't consider it off-topic to ask about their provenance, or if the political orientation of their sponsors was evident, and if that is morally acceptable. Do you think Disney is immune?
> why they depict characters a certain way and not others
The writers have ideas for characters and stories, they share them with each other, they refine them, change them a lot, and eventually try to get to a point where it's a cohesive story.
That's it -- that's the process. And if you ever get to work in an animation studio, you'll see just how much the story changes from the first pitch to the final product.
A kind of moot point, this is decision process happening in every studio all over the world. The only people who are truly independent are those who finance their movies themselves, and they are for a very different audience than Disney.
Not that I agree with certain Disney choices, but they are for-profit just like everybody else and if one doesn't like their production, voting with wallet is as usually the best course of action.
> "Disney make films - as part of a filmmaking process we might want to know why they make film X and not Y, why they depict characters a certain way and not others. Are filmmakers limited or directed in any way? Enquiring minds would like to know. Presumably if you were to view Soviet or Nazi propaganda films, you wouldn't consider it off-topic to ask about their provenance, or if the political orientation of their sponsors was evident, and if that is morally acceptable. Do you think Disney is immune?"
What are you trying to say exactly? We also don't know why Chopin and Bach wrote their music the way they did. Why Picasso, Vincent, Da Vinci and others chose the motives they did, and painted the exact way they did. Are you bothered by that too?
The answer you're looking for is "artistic freedoms", but I get the feeling you're looking for "ulterior motives" instead.
"We" make propaganda for "our way of life/moral convictions" - so?
EDIT: I don't think people presume Disney to be immune, more like the presumption is probably "they are on our side"
1 reply →
It seems you are circling around saying something that you don't want to say specifically, and I'm afraid I cannot follow the vague suggestion you are making.
It is false to equate Disney with soviet and nazi propaganda, because Disney has to make a profit and compete with movies made by other capitalistic companies.
State sponsored movies in dictatorships are different because viewers have no other choices but to view what’s made by the government and has no goal of making a profit.
2 replies →
Mind explaining how you came to that conclusion? As far as I can tell you're the one who is brining race into the conversation.
Um, haven't Disney been doing this for many decades?
Disney has no other motive but to tell stories that resonate with as many people as possible, because this alone will drive profits.
In the case of movies, motives are purely to maximise the appreciation by the broadest audience.
I really don't agree. Just look at the history of Disney, and Walt himself.
Disney has a history of promoting socially conscious narratives and trying to promote peace and harmony. It's kitsch, but look at the message of 'It's a small world'. This is what Disney has always been about, from promoting animal welfare and an appreciation of the natural world, to telling stories of people from a variety of races and cultures and focusing on what should unite us.
The other thing that Disney is (and has always been) about, is pushing the boundaries of the visual arts. You might not see Disney films as art, but one goal of Disney from the very earliest days has been to change your mind.
They are also a public company, so they have the motive of being profitable in their endeavors. But the goal of that is the same - resonate with viewers, because viewers equal movie tickets or subscribers to Disney+, which is how profit is made. It's not good or evil, it's just also a factor as they're responsible to shareholders.
Yes, and crucially, there are competing companies that are trying to make even better films to make people watch their movies rather than Disney movies.
It's not good or evil, it's just whatever the people want to watch.
I get the point but most art needs funding. If we go down that route, maybe we should start with Mozart or Beethoven? Or some prominent classical writers? I guess what I am saying is that this is not a particular unique situation.
Why Beethoven? Wasn't he the first to fund the composition of a significant works with the return of bank shares, which was relatively progressive in that it freed the composer from the whims of the arisotcracy/church dichotomy which existed before?
AFAIK he used shares as collateral to get loans, but he generally had a fair amount of royal/aristocratic patronage from quite early on (with compositions dedicated to some of them, e.g., the Archduke Rudolf).
1 reply →