today i had a rather interesting conversation with a friend of mine about terrible lessons that some films teach us. we went into great detail with disney films, such as "cinderella" and "the fox and the hound".
my friend pointed out that the lesson behind cinderella was basically "if you wait around long enough, the universe will practically hand stuff to you". think about it, i'm not denying that Cinderella's life sucked, but in her state of mind, she actually thought her dreams would just sorta happen if she sat around miserable long enough. it never occurs to her that she can stand up for herself and tell her stepmother to . she instead keeps scrubbing floors and beleiving that, if she continues to wish very hard and take absolutely no action, everything will fall into place. and what do you know, it works! she gets a freakin' kingdom out of it!
The fox and the hound is no better. if you haven't seen it, the story goes something like this: after his mother is killed by a hunter, a little fox is taken in by an old woman to be raised on a farm. he meas a hunting dog named copper and the 2 become friends. tod thinks they will be firends forever, but over the winter copper leaves on a hunting trip and returns as a full fledged fox-killing machine. when tod goes to visit copper, he is attacked by chief, copper's mentor. chief get's injured, and copper makes it his mission to hunt tod down and kill him. Copper and his owner eventually find Tod and try to take him down. when a bear jumps into the fight, Tod saves Copper and his owner. So they call a truce and go their seperate ways.
the moral here is meant to be "even though we're different, we can still get along!" but it appears to be more like "we're different, but we don't have to kill eachother. we can't live together, don't be silly!" the fox and the hound have their friendship destroyed and end up trying to kill eachother. only after the member of the pursued and persecuted species does a favour for his oppressor (when the hunted saves the hunters life) does the hound grant the fox permission to continue living. but not as equals; the hound goes back to his nice warm home with the humans and the fox returns to the wild. is this really how we will heal our racial and socioeconomic differences? by seperating ourselves?
so i ask you, fellow nerdfighters, what films do you think have bad morals behind them, and why?
Well, one could argue that the Fox and the Hound were not meant to be a metaphor for human behavior but an actual portrayal of the behavior of well.. foxes and hounds. The truth of the matter is that during that winter Copper was trained to do what he was bred to do. Hunting is an instinct genetically implanted in him by humans. It's not a destiny, but it wasn't something Copper could control. He was "brainwashed", if you will. As for Todd going back to the wild... That's the ending of many movies about humans befriending wild animals. Todd is a wild animal, it's where he belongs.
I'm not saying that foxes and hounds CAN'T be friends, but I am saying that the circumstances just didn't allow for it. It's a pretty frickin' sad story for a children's film, and kind of reminds of the movie "The way we were".
I never liked how "Heavenly Creatures" made it out that having a powerful imagination and a strong friendship, companionship even, is a bad thing and can very well drive you crazy.
This is a Peter Jackson film, based on an actual murder case in New Zealand in 1954. The film deals with the obsessive relationship between Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme, two teenagers. Pauline is from a working class family and Juliet is a more intellectual English girl, transferred to Pauline's school. Together they paint, write stories, and even create a fantasy kingdom, which gradually starts to be as real to them as the real world. When Juliet's parents tell her they plan to go away for a while and leave her behind, her fear of being left alone makes her hysterical, to a point where she first experiences "the Fourth world", a land where all is beautiful and safe. When she asks Pauline to come with her, the world becomes visible to her too. The fantasy develops into a shared psychosis, in which the Fourth World becomes more of a reality to them than the actual one.
As the events progress the girls sink more and more into their fantasy world, becoming their characters more than themselves, and their relationship eventually becomes sexual as well. The parents find out and blame Pauline. Juliet's parents soon decide they are leaving New Zealand and plan to leave Juliet with a relative in south Africa. Hysterical from the idea of having to part ways, the girls decide the only thing to do is to run away together, and that to achieve this, they must murder Pauline's mother.
I know this is based on actual events, and therefore can't entirely be judged for it's morals, but when I first watched it as a teenager, and one with a very active imagination at that (and a best friend with an equally active imagination as well), this scared the ever living out of me. Even as I watched it about a year ago, no longer a teenager, I really felt like this story was meant to deter us away from our fantasy worlds and any close relationships that had to do with them, maybe even be afraid of people whom you know that have these.This, I think, is a terrible thing to say.
Hunting is an instinct genetically implanted in him by humans.
No, hunting is an instinct genetically implanted by evolution that has been beaten out of most breeds of dog by humans.
Very true. I misspoke.
This also helps to prove my point. :P
I think that most movies about princesses are rather awful. Most of them are terribly demeaning to women and I never really like the way that the girls didn't have to do anything and got to have whatever they wanted. Excluding Beauty and the Beast, it wasn't that bad.
Also, the guy pretty much always falls head over heels for this princess when he met her like five minutes ago, so one can only assume that he only like her for her beauty. And that's not a good thing to build a relationship upon.
Why, it almost sounds as if there's no pleasing us when it comes to romance stories. :P
That's why my favorite romantic-comedy is "The Truth about Cats and Dogs", where a guy (Brian) wants to meet the intelligent and interesting hostess (Abby) of a radio show he called in on and because she's so insecure about how she looks she tells him she looks like her slightly dim-witted, blond, supermodel neighbor (Noelle). Of course there's a lot of confusion and 'if only's and all that crap, but by the end of it, Noelle discovers she's not as stupid as she thought she was, Abby discovers she's not at all as unattractive as she thought she was, and Brian is finally allowed to love and be with the woman he intended on being with to begin with, if she'd just had a bit more confidence in herself. He was interested in her before he even saw what she looked like, and never attributed Noelle's beauty to why he thought he loved her.
In the end, they all come out happier and more content with who they already were.
But hey! We're bitching about movies, not praising them!
Let me think here...
I once saw "P.S I love you", a movie my family were all convinced I'd love but I ended up hating. I just found the whole concept of how a man dies suddenly of a brain tumor and leaves his wife a bunch of messages (all ending with 'p.s I love you') that guide her along her grieving period and help her get over his death and find new love, completely disturbing and a bit sick.
He's both helping her get over him and also making it harder for her with all these loving messages.
Both of these things I find disturbing...
helping her get over him= noble, but dude... you're her husband. Weird.
making that same thing harder= a bit cruel. you're dead. be dead. Stop talking to her. It's creepy.
I don't think I'm the only one in the world who actually preferred the Beast as...well, as the Beast. Side note: this movie has weird connotations about Stockholm Syndrome being a good thing
All the Disney princess stories come from really old stories. I'm not excusing them, but the sexism of the times was rather blatant. The company as a whole has gotten much better. Take Aladin as an example: Jasmine is a strong young woman eager to find independence from the royal life. She fights against being gifted off to some random prince and finds a worthwhile partner in the protagonist BEFORE he ever fakes royalty. And Aladin is even shown to be wrong about his approach to the situation (though much of that is forced by the ridiculousness of the royal set-up to begin with). Jasmine, compared to older Disney princesses, is a much better role-model.
Bell and Pocahontas are also rather strong characters; willful, independent, and able to fight the status-quo for the betterment of their loved-ones. (I hear Mulan is also like this, though I haven't yet seen it.) I'd say the 90s was rife with Disney putting women into bad situations and letting them find their own solutions. Not that I'm trying to be the great defender of Disney. Don Bluth films beat out Disney ones every day of the year.