So last night I was watching The Lion King with some friends and as I have every other time this film comes up in discussion I presented my theory on how it is a retelling of Shakespeare's play Hamlet (And yes I realize that this is the second time Shakespeare has been a subject of my blog, what can I say, I'm in love). My friends seemed to dig it, especially my point that Timon and Pumba are complete adaptations of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Of course, as Disney is wont to do, there are certain elements that are toned down or cut out all together (who needs to see a lioness commit suicide in an animated film?), but for the most part the film is very true to the spirit of its source. Now before anyone else points it out I know that Simba not only defeats his uncle in The Lion King but also goes on to become king rather than meeting the most tragic and gruesome end Hamlet encounters at the conclusion of his story. I believe the reasons for this change, whether justified or not, are relatively obvious since we are dealing with a Disney film.As Shakespeare was writing a play, indeed a tragedy, in the tradition of the classical Greek tragedies where the big "bummer" serves as the motivation for the audience to ponder the purpose and meaning to their lives it makes complete sense that Hamlet has to suffer a climatic, and in this case the ultimate, fall. For Disney films the target audience is primarily young children and though of course people of all ages enjoy the films they are made with children in mind. In our present time death is not usually seen as an encouraging factor for a growing youth to experience and therefore it would have been counter-productive, if not downright discouraging, to have Simba die at the end of his travails. In addition, pop youth culture, especially since the punk movement, is already incredibly angst ridden and does not require the existential jolt Shakespeare provided in his play.
I also believe The Lion King serves an excellent role in cultural enrichment for simply promoting an interest in the great bard. As with historically based films, the student of history cannot obsess over detail, he or she will be forever disappointed in this way, but instead must be pleased by the growth in interest such Hollywood films bring about and the opportunity they provide to bring a better understanding of a given period to a larger proportion of the population. In conclusion then I would suggest that promoters of culture and literature should be pleased with The Lion King as since its release in 1994 it has promoted an appreciation of fine storytelling, art and literary history in its viewers; who for the most part are presented with all other manner of detrimental and derisive pop cultural junk.
2 comments:
If no one connects the Lion King to "the Great Bard," how then does it serve for cultural enrichment? I mean it is enriching that it is a good story and might help create an interest in storytelling (as you say), but does it really inspire the historical elements you discuss.
Out of curiosity, what are a few examples of "the dentrimental and derisive pop culture junk, you speak of?
You are correct in pointing out that in some instances that children who view The Lion King would need to be directed by others as to its literary ancestors. However, even if it takes years for this connection to be made (I myself didn't understand it until my senior year of high school when I read Hamlet for the first time), the point is that the film establishes a bed rock appreciation of well-done storytelling which is hardly a bad thing, as you point out yourself. And since it comes as second nature to humans to relate what they know to new things they experience I would argue that a child exposed to films such as The Lion King will have a much more enriching experience the first time they encounter more complicated literature in the classroom. Especially at a time where more and more children are expected to go straight to college from high school the more preparation they can be given while their brains are still very impressionable, the better. Of course that route has dangerous consequences as well, but I will refrain from exploring them to answer the second part of your question.
First I want to make clear that I am not a cultural elitist. However, I would be ignorant if I were not aware of how a great deal of media that children are exposed to is useless if not actually damaging to their education. Here is a short list: advertisements, TV shows that lack good writing and some kind of socially redeeming theme, pop music videos that serve only to promote crass commercialism and petty standards of self-image and respect, not to mention encouraging group-think over individuality, video games that are not designed for them (as many parents fail to prevent them from playing mature-themed games), movies that are not rated for them (and the increasing violent content in PG-13 films that are growing increasingly more unsuitable for young children) and I will end by mentioning advertising again, not having cable TV for some time has sensitized me to the excessive amount of ads I see when I visit someone's home who does have cable, in fact I would argue, as many in Europe do, that TV advertising in children's programming is unethical as well as a complete waste of their developmental time.
Post a Comment