Animation Source Forums

Check this out...
http://www.lionking.org/~ryan/lionking/text/essays/tlkpates.html

Scary, huh? Of course, TLK is above all else an animated picture.

Still, I couldn't help but agree with Karen Schwalm and her essay. The underlying political message of TLK is disturbing at best. Then again, if you care about politics too much, you'll seldom appreciate a good movie, and TLK remains a good movie.

I dunno... when I read an intervieuw with this nationalist politician the other day, in which he took of against immigrants for underminging the very fabric of our social security system, I couldn't help but think about hyena's 'disturbing the circle of life', and the pridelands turning into a wasteland. But thats just me, I gues
Still, it would make for a pretty grim allegory if it were true.

lol, that page made me laugh so hard...
That girl cant divide a "serious statement" and an "inronic statement".. (see the scene with Scar and Mufasa, talking about the ceremony.

Gee.. what a nonsense... rofl...
She totally missed the topic of the movie... Everyone can interpret much into a film, depending on its topic.

Maybe they should put a democracy in the next lion king, where all the animals go to polling place and chooses their king... geee... what a nonsense

Although can agree with

I still think the intrinsic qualities of a movie should not withold anyone from searching for a possible double layer.

That being said, if TLK doesn't promote the socio-political organisation depicted in 'Patriarchy...', then what social structure does it promote? Or does TLK remain neutral on the subject, not proponing any soci-political project whatsoever? If the latter were true, wouldn't that mean TLK has les s deapth than I gave it going for (now please don't burn me at the stake for sacrilige: every good discussion needs some provocative statements)?

It is easy to explain: The lions HAVE a patriarchy, in reality and in the film. They just wanted to be so accurate as possible.
Secondly, it is a STORY and promotes NOTHING. Just because Lord of the Rings got some kings, it promotes monarchy? It is a story, no more no less.

btw lol... possible dobule layer... I'm sorry, but... if you try to inperpret the catcts in such a flim, you can even find a taliban somewhere o.O or whatever.
A film or a story is not ment to have a dobule layer... maybe a moral to learn from it... but looking for a "dark side" or whatsoever in such a film is nonsense in my opinion.

Who said anything about a dark-side? Looking for that 'extra layer' (even if it be not so pc) just makes the movie even more enyojable, deeper and better. It's just one more aspect that sets TLK appart from more run-off-the-mill features, lifting it higher.

Speculations does not make the film more enjoyable, deeper or better... they are just specualtions. Speculations which can not be rationalized. To make it deeper or better the inventors would have to invent more details, but specualtions cannot make a film better or deeper.

Indeed, speculations on account of the vieuwers do not enhanche a movie. I however believe we are not dealing with speculations but with an actual (if possibly unintended, this is hard to falsify) imbedded 'blueprint' of a society. I do not state it should not be there, nor would I wish it to be a diffrent movie . My oppinion simply is an added allegory of society is present.

It is easy to deny this without further arguments, but harder to prove wrong (not because of my [nonexistant, as should begin to show by now] arguing tallents, but simpely because my statement is backed by an entire essay).

Of course there is an embedded society. But it is nothing special. If you invent a story, you invent a society automatically.
They just used the statement "The lion is the king of the animals". King -> ruler -> Mufasa, etc, mixed with the ranking of a lion pride... there we go.

"...backed by an entire essay..." I'm sorry... but everyone can write something like this... so i don't think it is a good backup...

So you agree there is indeed an 'embedded society', but our vieuws difer as to the how it got there or what it means (if anything)?
I move we conclude the above before this turns into a yes-no topic.

By the way, I think you misinterpretted me when I said 'backed by an essay': indeed, everyone can write that, my point was the essay, regardless of its source (assuming it not written by a paranoid Disney-hater), contains arguments I find valid.

I agree, there is an embedded society, but it is nothing special... it's not even "hidden". Everyone can see it without any problems if they watch the movie.
That society is just a mixture from the pride ranking and the statement, that the lion is the king of the animal... it's that simple. Sometimes a story is just a story, without anything big behind it.

"I agree, there is an embedded society, but it is nothing special... it's not even "hidden". Everyone can see it without any problems if they watch the movie." -----> What about children? Are they able to pick up on the hidden society or sterotypes?

Although I don't think TLK writers sat down and thought about how they can recreate society into a pride of lions, they certainly have thrown in many values/beliefs of their own society. Lions/people that look very different from the others are "bad" (scar is darker with a black mane) as well as all the banished lion's in TLK2 are darker/different=bad.

Females can't save the day - they need to go find a male to help them. 10 lioness's can't save their land but throw in a male Simba and voila! victory is theirs! Male=strong, smart hero, female=needy, useless, weak

There are many more, but these are just two of the underlining values we are teaching our youth (albeit indirectly) It's not just TLK. Many children's books and movies sterotype wrongly or send terrible messages. You can say a story is just a story Fox, but that story (along with many others) is helping to shape the youth, our future. And that is not so simple.[/quote]

Little question: have you ever met a child, who is interested in societies in a film? don't think so?

although i agree in a part of it, i cannot agree that the lioness are useless or weak there. They just wouldn't have any chance against all the hyenas.
10 - 500? (or even if it was 10 - 100... impossible to win without hope, after a bad message of mufasas death, or could you fight against a larger group of ppl, after the message that your father died?AND WIN THAT FIGHT? Don't think so..)
Nala easily beats Simba, so he is NOT the hero. At all, Nala is WAY stronger than Simba (see the fight before when she finds him).

Of course I haven't met a child interested in societies. But that doesn't mean it's not there, and quite frankly irrelevant. Movies are made to make $$. Writers are going to make the best film they can that will appeal to the largest audience possible. Putting a society in a story is neccesary in a good story. It's the society that makes it interesting to analyze!

10 - 500 can't win but 11 - 500 can? Come on. I doubt a single extra lion could have made a huge diffenence - and even if it did it certainly wasn't stressed that way in TLK. Personally I do beleive they were portrayed as useless - why else would Nala go out to find help? And even when they return it is Simba who has to tell her what to do. ("raly the lionesses") She can't think for herself and do the obvious - nor do they put their heads together and make a plan - it is Simba who calls the shots.

It's still a great movie though.