Gooding-Williams or Morton

As a whole, after reading both pieces, I can easily say that the much more thought out and easily identifiable argument is that of Morton. While Gooding-Williams and Morton both have interesting points based on their unique perspectives Morton identifies many of the flaws that I saw in Gooding-Williams's piece. One of the most convincing aspects of Morton's piece was the fact that he viewed the entirety of The Lion King rather than just one part as he points out Gooding-Williams does. Morton examines not just the imagery related to Scar and the Hyenas but looks at the rest of the world and the other characters who live there. I was most interested in how he accomplishes this through his understanding of the relationship between Simba, Timon, and Pumbaa. Morton discusses the idea that the relationship between the three characters, something he coins brotherhood, symbolizes the striking of an alliance between the productive working class (even though Timon and Pumbaa don’t technically work) and the legitimate ruling class. Another place where I believe Gooding-Williams fell short that is addressed in Morton's piece is the lack of an obvious and straight forward interpretation of The Lion King. Not only is the conclusion that Gooding-Williams comes too much too simple for me to accept as Morton points out Scar’s world is far from the ideals that Gooding-Williams thrusts upon it, but the new world is also a place where no one works, everyone is hungry, and power is corrupt. These aspects do not fit into Gooding-Williams picture of The Lion King as a political allegory and thusly highlight a major flaw in his argument that The Lion King is much less black and white than Gooding-Williams accepts. Morton does point out that one of the key themes in the film that is related to this is the idea that corruption is embedded into the system and not simply to a particular location. In my mind, this interpretation is much more believable and much. Better championed by the movie than the argument made by Gooding-Williams. The final point that I believe emphasized the strength of Morton's piece was the fact that at multiple points in his piece he pointed out the ambiguity of interoperating The Lion King. He states that the film is an empty symbolic vessel. This means that the understandings of these tales are subject to personal beliefs, and Morton argues that this makes them stories about stories. The fact that the movie is up to interpretation means that the various understandings of the work are themselves stories containing fictional components produced from the individuals attempting to decode them.