While I can agree with and understand Fudge’s point on many issues, I cannot say the same for Bartnett. Here’s why:
Bartnett begins by arguing that Mulan is a clear example of a patriarchal society. I agree that the plot line does take place in this hierarchy. However, I do not believe that this “reinforces a foundation of male superiority” that Bartnett claims it does (186). In this time of China’s history, it was a patriarchal society. Simply showing the time as the way it was does not mean that Disney is trying to push female inferiority. In the end of the movie, Mulan breaks past the restrictions that are placed on her as a result of this type of society showing that this society in fact does not account for the abilities of women. In making a film where the woman overcomes the obstacles of society to prove a woman’s worth, Disney is most definitely not condoning that society, and it is clear that Mulan’s abilities are not overshadowed by the initial box she is placed in by the society in which she lives.
Along these same lines, when Mulan’s mother and grandmother want her to succeed within the society she is in, I do not feel that this is necessarily condoning the behavior of a patriarchy. When these characters are “shown as passive, submissive victims” in this society, it is not because Disney wants to continue the circle of oppressing women. It simply was the case in the time that Mulan would have lived. Secondly, the conviction that Mulan’s grandmother can be erased from the movie because she is “senile” because she “covered her eyes and crossed a busy street to discover whether the cricket she carried was lucky” is unfair to me (187). Instead, I see this as an example of faith. While I don’t believe that a cricket is necessarily capable of controlling so much around him, I do think it is admirable the amount of faith that the woman has in her convictions. I believe this idea transcends the idea that she is senile and has no value in the movie. Furthermore, to criticize someone’s belief to the point that you feel they can be completely erased shows a real harsh criticism and exclusion of others on behalf of Bartnett.
Bartnett also believes that Mulan cannot succeed unless she has men in her life to encourage her, make her decisions, and all around save the day while she gets credit for their actions. Really? Bartnett’s first points out that “the only people who encourage Mulan are Mushu (who is actually a dragon) and her father” (187). If I remember the movie correctly, I believe her father is the one who flips out at her at the dining room table for being an inappropriate woman for speaking her mind. He tells her that she needs to learn her place in society. In the end, yes, I agree that he does support her and he is definitely proud for what she has done, but I do not agree that he encourages her throughout the movie as Bartnett does.
Bartnett also criticizes Mulan’s inability to make decisions without the help of a man. Her main argument is that Mushu actually makes a lot of the decisions for her or stands up against whatever decisions Mulan comes to. However, I don’t view this as a male domination in any way. Having a friend to bounce ideas off of, regardless of gender, is a good thing. In fact, many times, having someone who is of the opposite sex discuss your ideas with you can help give a more holistic approach to a situation because it gives you a different perspective to examine before making a one-sided decision. This is especially true in Mulan’s case because she is trying to live in a man’s world. Having a man to guide her in that path seems like a smart decision rather than an example of male domination. Bartnett also quotes Gilligan’s ideas of how women make decisions. She says that “women often make choices between right and wrong based upon their connections to people” as if that is a bad things (188). Why is it bad to look at a decision on a situational basis rather than one strict rule that applies to all situations?
Bartnett also takes issue with Mushu being Mulan’s sidekick throughout the movie. Her prime example is a scene where the Hun bird knocks matches out of Mulan’s hand preventing her from lighting the cannon to use against the Huns. To light the cannon, Muhu, a fire-breathing dragon, breathes on the canon to create the fire. Bartnett says that “despite Disney’s attempt as portraying Mulan as smart and resourceful, the fact that Mushu must light the cannon reinforces the idea that women need a man’s assistance to get a job done” (189). However, I think using Mushu is a creative idea. Again regardless of the fact that Mushu is a man, the idea is a good one and should be rewarded. With all of her attacks on Mushu, I believe that Bartnett commits a huge fallacy. Why is it that Mushu’s gender comes before the tasks he does and the friendship he builds with Mulan? Why is it that because he is a male he is, in Bartnett’s view, in the dominant position? Mushu does a lot of things to help Mulan and gets no credit from the Emperor or army. Instead, he must wait until he goes back to the spirit world before receiving the reward for what he did. I believe that judging his actions simply because of his gender is committing the same crime that Bartnett is arguing against.
While I have several other problems with this article, I think it is most important to simply step back and look at the film as a whole. I feel that she finds instances in the movie to support her article and does not really consider any other option for these events to occur. By closing our minds to other interpretations of these actions, we are belittling the minds of the children that watch these films because we assume that they can only interpret these actions in one way. A rather sophisticated interpretation at that. As viewers of media, the most important thing we can do is look at a media in context with the storyline around it and see what we can draw from it, rather than look at isolated incidents and make it fit with an argument we wish to make.
No comments:
Post a Comment