This is another entry from that amazing (have I mentioned how awesome it is?) fairy tales course I'm taking. We were asked to to address the larger questions of Disney's contribution to the genre (including the Cinderella movie or theme park additions).
Here's my take. Admittedly, it's a little academic, but this is for a class, after all.....It's also my opinion, so you may (or may not) disagree with my analysis:
In terms of Disney's take on the Cinderella story, I think the Disney company understood that they were creating a story geared specifically toward families (including young children), and our idea of children and what's appropriate for them has certainly changed from the European ideas of the 1600s-1800s. Families would certainly have objected and never taken their children to see a film in which the stepsisters cut off part of their feet, whatever those feet happened to symbolize (foot fetishes/vaginas or religious punishments for not being nice people). It's enough for the American children of the 1950s to understand that the bad step-sisters do not get to live happily ever after in a beautiful castle with the prince, while the good and virtuous Cinderella (who works very hard, always with a smile, and is kind to animals, fierce cats, and unkind women) gets rewarded. Clearly, the feminist critics will take issue with this interpretation, because despite the fact that the Fairy Godmother of the Disney version (and arguable Lady Tremaine herself) exert power in society (power over Cinderella in both cases), the women in the tale are clearly subservient to the male patriarchy, as represented by the castle (which could potentially be read as a phallic symbol with all those towers and turrets) and the prince. There's also the idea put forth by the king in the Disney Cinderella concerning the need for the prince to marry so that the king will have grandchildren to play with, which speaks to the role and importance of marriage in 1950s America.
As for the theme parks, the Cinderella Castle in the Magic Kingdom is the ultimate "weenie" - it draws our attention after the big reveal as the crowd turns that corner on Main Street USA. The castle does seem designed to draw park guests into the story, to immerse us in the magic, so to speak. I think it contributes to the illusion that these fairy tale stories are, in fact, real, because they have a place in our world (even if it is only within the confines of a very carefully constructed theme park reality). It's also connected to the message of the Disney version of the story, which seems to encourage us that if we are good and if we can persevere through hardship with kindness and a smile, then we, too, can live happily ever after.
In thinking about the lecture interpretation of the Cinderella stories, I'm intrigued by the application of the Oedipal complex (at least in terms of the rivalry for parental affection) to the Cinderella story. For me, I found the application of the Freudian lens (particularly in the Grimm and Perrault - and even the Disney version) to be more about the importance of following our superego, as it reveals the social and cultural norms of the time that we have internalized, rather than pursuing our id desires (which may have included rebellion or a bad attitude toward being ordered around by the step-mother and step-sisters). For me, the tale is about listening to the superego, rather than asserting our own id desires, and perhaps finding a way to integrate the two (the superego tells Cinderella to do as she's told; her id tells her to go to the ball to see the prince, even though she's been told she can't; her ego finds a way to balance those two warring desires so that she completes all of her assigned tasks and is still able to "sneak" into the ball in "disguise" without her step-mother or step-sisters knowing).
Here's my take. Admittedly, it's a little academic, but this is for a class, after all.....It's also my opinion, so you may (or may not) disagree with my analysis:
In terms of Disney's take on the Cinderella story, I think the Disney company understood that they were creating a story geared specifically toward families (including young children), and our idea of children and what's appropriate for them has certainly changed from the European ideas of the 1600s-1800s. Families would certainly have objected and never taken their children to see a film in which the stepsisters cut off part of their feet, whatever those feet happened to symbolize (foot fetishes/vaginas or religious punishments for not being nice people). It's enough for the American children of the 1950s to understand that the bad step-sisters do not get to live happily ever after in a beautiful castle with the prince, while the good and virtuous Cinderella (who works very hard, always with a smile, and is kind to animals, fierce cats, and unkind women) gets rewarded. Clearly, the feminist critics will take issue with this interpretation, because despite the fact that the Fairy Godmother of the Disney version (and arguable Lady Tremaine herself) exert power in society (power over Cinderella in both cases), the women in the tale are clearly subservient to the male patriarchy, as represented by the castle (which could potentially be read as a phallic symbol with all those towers and turrets) and the prince. There's also the idea put forth by the king in the Disney Cinderella concerning the need for the prince to marry so that the king will have grandchildren to play with, which speaks to the role and importance of marriage in 1950s America.
As for the theme parks, the Cinderella Castle in the Magic Kingdom is the ultimate "weenie" - it draws our attention after the big reveal as the crowd turns that corner on Main Street USA. The castle does seem designed to draw park guests into the story, to immerse us in the magic, so to speak. I think it contributes to the illusion that these fairy tale stories are, in fact, real, because they have a place in our world (even if it is only within the confines of a very carefully constructed theme park reality). It's also connected to the message of the Disney version of the story, which seems to encourage us that if we are good and if we can persevere through hardship with kindness and a smile, then we, too, can live happily ever after.
In thinking about the lecture interpretation of the Cinderella stories, I'm intrigued by the application of the Oedipal complex (at least in terms of the rivalry for parental affection) to the Cinderella story. For me, I found the application of the Freudian lens (particularly in the Grimm and Perrault - and even the Disney version) to be more about the importance of following our superego, as it reveals the social and cultural norms of the time that we have internalized, rather than pursuing our id desires (which may have included rebellion or a bad attitude toward being ordered around by the step-mother and step-sisters). For me, the tale is about listening to the superego, rather than asserting our own id desires, and perhaps finding a way to integrate the two (the superego tells Cinderella to do as she's told; her id tells her to go to the ball to see the prince, even though she's been told she can't; her ego finds a way to balance those two warring desires so that she completes all of her assigned tasks and is still able to "sneak" into the ball in "disguise" without her step-mother or step-sisters knowing).
Image courtesy of disneydreaming.com