I think Morton makes a convincing argument against Gooding-Williams in his essay. By taking note of how Gooding-Williams ignores several components of The Lion King to validate his argument, Morton shows how Gooding-Williams makes invalid arguments in the case of utopia.
Gooding-Williams argues that Disney shows that a utopia which provides equality would not function in society and would ultimately lead to darkness and death. However, to argues this, he claims that Scar is trying to create such a utopia. This is a huge stretch; Morton rightfully discusses how Scar is simply evil. He is not seeking to create a utopia, scar just wants to have power and defeat his brother. Gooding-Williams makes his argument of this dystopia by skewing the plot of the story itself.
Morton discusses how Gooding-WIlliams is a part of the “fetishism of proletarian revolt.” I think this wording is a bit extreme. Gooding-Williams does depict The Lion King as something very reminiscent of the Marxist portrayal in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. However, I think to say he is fetishizing this revolt is a stretch - he is simply drawing an argument based on a limited scope of the plot of The Lion King.
It is also interesting how Morton points out that Gooding-Williams leaves out Timon and Pumbaa from his argument all together, and instead focuses on Rafiki and the Hyenas. Timon and Pumbaa, as Gooding-Williams states, are at the bottom of the food chain yet favor the “capitalist” version of society. However, in discussing how the idea of the circle of life is less destructive than argued by Gooding-Williams, Morton seems to describe Timon and Pumbaa as more insignificant to society than they really are. In my opinion, Timon and Pumbaa could be seen as the unconventional heroes of the story: they are responsible for Simba’s upbringing and ultimately help him take back the throne.
I also agree with Morton that Gooding-Williams does make a valid argument about how The Lion King resembles American inner city life. I think that Gooding-Williams would have had a much stronger argument as a whole if he left out his discussion of Africa and the circle of life and just focused on how the story depicts American inner city life. In doing so, he would have been able to analyze more details in the story relating to American classes, like Timon and Pumba, and would not have made such loose claims regarding the depiction of Africa and of the problematic nature of the circle of life.
Gooding-Williams argues that Disney shows that a utopia which provides equality would not function in society and would ultimately lead to darkness and death. However, to argues this, he claims that Scar is trying to create such a utopia. This is a huge stretch; Morton rightfully discusses how Scar is simply evil. He is not seeking to create a utopia, scar just wants to have power and defeat his brother. Gooding-Williams makes his argument of this dystopia by skewing the plot of the story itself.
Morton discusses how Gooding-WIlliams is a part of the “fetishism of proletarian revolt.” I think this wording is a bit extreme. Gooding-Williams does depict The Lion King as something very reminiscent of the Marxist portrayal in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. However, I think to say he is fetishizing this revolt is a stretch - he is simply drawing an argument based on a limited scope of the plot of The Lion King.
It is also interesting how Morton points out that Gooding-Williams leaves out Timon and Pumbaa from his argument all together, and instead focuses on Rafiki and the Hyenas. Timon and Pumbaa, as Gooding-Williams states, are at the bottom of the food chain yet favor the “capitalist” version of society. However, in discussing how the idea of the circle of life is less destructive than argued by Gooding-Williams, Morton seems to describe Timon and Pumbaa as more insignificant to society than they really are. In my opinion, Timon and Pumbaa could be seen as the unconventional heroes of the story: they are responsible for Simba’s upbringing and ultimately help him take back the throne.
I also agree with Morton that Gooding-Williams does make a valid argument about how The Lion King resembles American inner city life. I think that Gooding-Williams would have had a much stronger argument as a whole if he left out his discussion of Africa and the circle of life and just focused on how the story depicts American inner city life. In doing so, he would have been able to analyze more details in the story relating to American classes, like Timon and Pumba, and would not have made such loose claims regarding the depiction of Africa and of the problematic nature of the circle of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment