When doing the reading for this week, a lot of it focused on how the messages that we are receiving from the media aren’t always the intended message. Barthes in the McQuail reader poses three questions: “How does meaning get into the image? Where does it end? And if it ends, what is there beyond?” (290). I think these are really important questions, and when reading them it reminded me of an article I read surrounding the controversy of one of the latest Disney movies, “The Princess and the Frog.” Disney has had many movies that have had some controversies whether they be racial or historic inaccuracies, but this movie was getting a lot of attention because of some potentially racial issues--and ultimately the above three questions were what many people were questioning.
The controversy started with the fact that it took until recently for Disney to even have an African American princess. From there it escalated to the name choice and her occupation (which were initially Maddy and a maid to a white family), the setting of the story which was New Orleans, the fact that her prince wasn’t black, and that they spent the majority of the movie as frogs not people. Now whether you feel these things constitute as being racist or not, put your views aside and think about it from an audience perspective. Picture a young child who is the target audience for this type of movie, who may not have ever been exposed to a lot of cultures, or whose mind is still impressionable. “Media have become a primary means by which many of us experience or learn about many aspects of the world around us. Even when we don’t learn about these things directly from the media, we learn about them from other people who get their ideas of the world from the media.” (Baran and Davis, 200). From this, you have one option where these children might see some of the aspects of this film and deem them as how things really are. Granted, not every child is going to believe what they see, but is it any different than thinking you were going to marry you’re prince charming when you were that young? Do you think people are always able to clearly make these distinctions?
Disney adhered to some of these protests by its consumers and made some changes like to the name of the princess, which became Tiana, and her occupation which made her a chef. Do you think they did these things to just hush those protesting? Or do you think they did this because they maybe saw how this could offend members of their audience?
The movie obviously had more to it than what the controversy surround, it is a Disney movie after all. But some of the other messages get lost amongst the way certain symbols and images were portrayed in the film. Stuart Hall, in the McQuail reader, states that “The ‘Message-form’ is the necessary form of the appearance of the event in its passage from source to receiver” (304). In this case, clearly a message was sent. Do you think it was the right one? Do you think it’s important how messages dealing with issues such as race come across (even if unintentional) are received?
http://www.essence.com/entertainment/film/critics_dispute_princess_and_the_frog.php
The way that race is portrayed in the media gives off more negative effects and consequences than most people realize. First of all, the people that are most dominant in the media are white men. This is because they are in charge of most aspects of the media and therefore control what we see, leaving us with only their point of view or their message. In the Baran and Davis reading it talked about Marxist Theory. He believed that elites dominated society primarily through their direct control over the means of production, the base, or substructure of society. Marx argued that the hierarchical class system was at the root of all social problems and must be ended by a revolution of the workers or the masses of people in society. “Marx concluded that the only realistic hope for social change was a revolution in which the masses seized control of the base – the means of production. Control over the superstructure – over ideology.” I completely agree with Marx because unless a big enough group of people attempt to change certain aspects in society, the same people are going to have control and nothing will change. Disney movies are a great example of how exclusionary the media is when it comes to race. All of the Disney princesses and characters have been white for many years, and although they are trying to change that now, they clearly aren’t doing a great job according to the article Brittany found. There are still hints of racism or stereotyping which can only create a continuing cycle of oppression. Therefore, I believe there needs to be a major change of hands in terms of control and media production so that racism and exclusion will no longer happen.
ReplyDeleteIn the McQuail reading it talks about signs and meanings we interpret from messages. “Having made these links and created symbols of exchange it can use them as signs and so can we. For example: diamonds may be marketed by likening them to eternal love, creating a symbolism where the mineral means something not in its own terms, as a rock, but in human terms, as a sign.” In regards to race, this made me think about the video we saw in class which showed young black kids pick between a white or black doll and were asked which one was better or had more positive associations. I was horrified that the majority of them chose the white doll, but I was not surprised. By seeing mainly white people in the media being portrayed as superior and everything else positive gives off a bad message. In essence, it’s like a symbol or sign people interpret by making links from the messages and images we get from the media. Minorities are constantly being portrayed as criminals and other negative stereotypes so obviously they are labeled from these signs and are to some extent an undesired symbol. I think that race can definitely fit in this theory and is detrimental to any form of equality. The messages need to change so that the symbols and signs we construe are not based on superiority or inferiority and continue to support inequality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm more concerned that Disney did not consider or gauge feelings of African American towards the movie before it got so far along in it's production. It's unfortunate enough that it took so long for such a movie to come to fruition, but then for it meet a backlash because the story line was insensitive does not really show Disney as making an effort to diversify it's content in a responsible way.
ReplyDeleteHall writes, " It should have been firmly established, as Gerbner has remarke, that representations of violence on the TV screen 'are not violence but messages about violence' (303). As this is true, Disney should have realized that their movie sent a message about African Americans. Their lack of content also sent a message about African Americans, but that's another conversation entirely. Clearly in both cases the wrong message was sent or the backlash would not have resulted in a change in the story line of the movie.
I think it's important that message senders find out how their messages are received before they mass distribute them. Media makers play a role in social construction. That role is seen as either really small or really great (Baran and Davis 309). Whether that role is small or great they have a responsibility to contribute to society in a responsible and well thought out manner.
Disney's execution of their first film on an actual African American human being does not strike me as being very well thought out. Whether that's because it's about race or because Disney just usually doesn't put that much thought in to these things is unclear.
All the same, messages on race are controversial. One way or another someone is going to be rubbed the wrong way because there is such diversity of thought/feeling on the subject matter. It's most ideal to keep to conversation going, remain open-minded, and seek to unite various viewpoints through understanding.