The Lion King – Bitch Flicks

Disney’s ‘The Lion King’: Why We Are the Hyenas

By softening hyena matriarchy, however, Disney accurately represents the aspirations of human feminists: Shenzi, Banzai, and Ed joke around and work together in casual solidarity. Shenzi is confident in her opinions and never belittled for this, nor is her acceptance conditional on romantic availability.

Written by Brigit McCone.

“I’ve always been a person who asks questions, who demands an explanation, which is partly why I was getting into trouble, because I guess as a woman I was supposed to be seen and not heard” – Dr. Wangari Maathai

Though Bitch Flicks has published an interesting analysis of gender in The Lion King by Feminist Disney, it neglects one important point: we are clearly the hyenas. Specifically, we’re Disney hyenas. Actual hyenas, according to Professor Kay Holekamp (who sounds like a real-life version of hyena-studying, dinosaur-fighting badass Dr. Sarah Harding, from Michael Crichton’s The Lost World) hilariously resemble an antifeminist’s nightmare – the females having evolved “pseudopenises” (peniform clitorises) that make mating without consent impossible, and enable the flushing out of unwanted sperm after recreational sex, the weaker males are reduced to whimpering, head-bobbing appeasement of the hierarchic hyena matriarchy. Disney may be aware of this, depicting Whoopi Goldberg’s Shenzi as the most vocal and assertive hyena. By softening hyena matriarchy, however, Disney accurately represents the aspirations of human feminists: Shenzi, Banzai, and Ed joke around and work together in casual solidarity. Shenzi is confident in her opinions and never belittled for this, nor is her acceptance conditional on romantic availability. Disney gave us the feminist ideal, but coded her as evil (*cough* Ursula).

There’s more. Disney’s hyenas constantly consult each other in decision-making. Their instinctive anti-authoritarianism is displayed when Scar proposes the assassination of Mufasa. Instead of scheming to crown Shenzi as Hyena Queen, the hyenas gleefully chant, “No king! No king! Lalalalalaaala!” understanding hierarchy as inherently oppressive. Shenzi has a clear concept of the need for solidarity to achieve progress, preventing Banzai and Ed from fighting each other, since internal divisions leave them “dangling at the bottom of the food chain.” Ed is non-verbal and has a visible intellectual disability. We can criticize this representation, but consider what it says about the hyenas: Ed’s buddies patiently decode his non-verbal communications and consult his opinion regularly, empowering him to develop to his full potential. Like Shenzi’s gender, Ed’s disability is never mentioned by the hyenas, as irrelevant to his personhood (hyenahood?). The creepily eugenic conformity of the lions, by contrast, is broken only by Scar’s darker-furred outsider, mockingly named after his facial disfigurement. Shenzi and Banzai have a point: man, are they ugly.

The hyenas adopt the spurned Scar as “one of us, our pal,” illustrating their openness to interspecies alliance. Simba heroically uses his closest interspecies friends, Timon and Pumbaa, as “live bait” without blinking. While the issue of Nala feeding on lovable supporting characters is raised by Timon’s “she wants to eat him, and everybody’s OK with this?!” it gets no reply but “relax, Timon.” Yet, the hyenas’ willingness to eat other species is the sole marker of their villainy, apart from sarcastic humor and bad puns, while the lions’ heroism is confirmed only by auspicious weather. All things considered, Disney is teaching your children that there is no greater threat to natural justice than an egalitarian democratic collective with inclusive gender and disability policies.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY”]

“You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some babbling baboon rubbed juice on your head!”

“A poor person will cut their last tree to cook what may be their last meal. They’re not worried about tomorrow, they’re worried about today.” – Dr. Wangari Maathai

Scar deeply resents the lion culture of glorified strength and justified hierarchy that marginalizes him, but he is unable to think outside of it, only to imagine himself empowered by becoming its leader. Secure in his cultural supremacy, Scar interprets the Hyena Clan’s incomprehension of hierarchy as symptomatic of weakness and idiocy – “it’s clear from your vacant expressions, the lights are not all on upstairs, but we’re talking kings and successions, even you can’t be caught unawares!” – recalling patronizing settler interpretations of Native American democracy as “original innocence” rather than cultural sophistication. The tragedy of The Lion King is that the hyenas’ egalitarian clan is driven by hunger to abandon its principles, modeling itself on the very social order that is oppressing it. Villainous showstopper “Be Prepared” depicts a crowd of animals pledging loyalty to a lion on a rock pedestal, just like the heroic “Circle of Life” opening anthem. Disney downplays this blatant similarity by casting Scar’s ceremony as a Nazi (feminazi?) rally. Classic Godwin’s Law: if you can’t prove your heroes are better than your villains without putting Nazi iconography in your kids’ cartoon, you lose this argument. But the greater question is, are we Scar or are we Shenzi? Do feminist critics want to see Nala and Sarabi running the Pride, as role models for young girls, or do we want to promote egalitarian democracy?

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkU23m6yX04″]

Scar’s not bossy, he’s the boss

“It amazes me now, in retrospect, to see how people can hide your history and can give you a complete blackout on who you are and what your people have gone through” – Dr. Wangari Maathai

In 1688, Aphra Behn published Oroonoko, having visited Surinam’s plantations as a young woman. A staunch Royalist, Behn’s novella portrays the enslavement of an African prince, whose “honor”, “rising and Roman” nose, “great soul,” and “noble” features code him as “naturally” aristocratic. It is therefore a terrible injustice for Prince Oroonoko, who oversees the traffic of slaves in his native land, to be himself enslaved. It makes surreal reading: Aphra Behn is colorblind, not because she is so progressive, but because she is so extremely conservative that she does not require race to justify systematic economic exploitation. The anti-aristocratic American Dream created the need for systemic racism, as the only alternative to dismantling exploitation. Nowadays, 20th century globalization has moved the marker of hierarchy again, from “civilized race” to “developed nation.”

The Lion King is, therefore, a thoroughly modern myth, because its anxieties are all geographical, centered on defending borders against starving masses. Sure, the magnificently posh James Earl Jones can voice Mufasa, King of the Beasts, but the Hyena Clan is ghetto. The Hyena Clan is third world. Hyenas are huddled masses, yearning to breathe free. Hyenas look like this, caricatures of “natural” Irish barbarity created in response to waves of desperate immigrants fleeing the catastrophic aftermath of the largely manmade Irish Famine (“clan” is Gaelic for “family,” fact fans). Hyenas, when they breach the borders of the Pride Lands, automatically become “slobbering, mangy, stupid poachers.” Illegal aliens, in other words. Cheech Marin’s Banzai is the threatening flipside to his patronized Tito in Oliver & Company. You will observe, too, that Simba and Nala’s assumed entitlement to visit hyena territory does not lead them to reconsider the hyenas’ right to enter the Pride Lands.

"I bet they sell postcards!" — “I bet they sell postcards!”

“‘Human beings’ is a strange species because sometimes it turns on itself, and destroys itself” – Dr. Wangari Maathai

The key to the film’s worldview comes after Scar and the hyenas take power. The entire Pride Lands are revealed to have descended into a version of the hyenas’ bleak and blighted elephant graveyard. Having associated hyenas with ghettoes and developing nations, by narrative role as much as voice coding, The Lion King reassures viewers that the hyenas’ hunger is not, after all, the result of their exclusion and segregation by lions. Oh no. Hunger is a natural, permanent feature of hyenas, which would infect the Pride Lands if they weren’t segregated. As Banzai grumbles “I thought things were bad under Mufasa,” the comforting vindication of the lions’ status quo is complete: even hyenas feel worse off when hyenas are given equal opportunities. Hyenas should be segregated because they’re too hungry; they’re too hungry because they’re segregated. It’s the Circular Reasoning of Life, and it moves us all. Contrast Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assessment of ghettoes: “The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them, but they do not make them, any more than a prisoner makes a prison.” Contrast activist Dot Keet’s assessment of the African food crisis: “the programmes of the IMF and the World Bank undermined agriculture in many African countries, because they forbid African governments to give subsidies, and support, and marketing facilities to small producers, and they also undermined local production through forcing open these local economies.”

There’s a lot to be said for Adam Smith’s theory of free trade; one thing to be said is that free movement of labor is a fundamental market force. Employers move in search of lower wages, workers move in search of higher wages; supply and demand achieve equilibrium. A free trade agreement with any country cannot be justified without open borders with that country. Yet, as the Euro-American stranglehold on leadership of the IMF and World Bank shows, we support democracy within nations, but enforce plutocracy internationally. A quick look at Hollywood’s disproportionate underrepresentation of African and Asian stories indicates that global culture is shaped by the economic imperative to erase and dehumanize the developing world, just as it was once by the economic imperative to erase and dehumanize enslaved races, colonized “savages” (“Shenzi” is Swahili for “savage,” fact fans) or peasant “commoners.” At its heart, The Lion King is a fuzzy animal allegory justifying global inequality. Aside from weeping children in charity ads, which discourage foreign direct investment, The Lion King is one of the few African images that American and European children are exposed to, with American-voiced Mufasa justifying his dominance over “everything the light touches” because his fattened corpse may eventually fertilize grass for antelopes. A few of them.

"And that's called trickle-down economics, young Simba" — “And that’s called trickle-down economics, young Simba”

“Instead of trickling down, go to them and say, ‘maybe there should be a trickle up'” – Dr. Wangari Maathai

In 1977, following reports by rural Kenyan women that their streams were drying up, their food supply becoming less secure and firewood growing scarce, Professor Wangari Maathai founded the Green Belt Movement on behalf of the National Council of Women of Kenya. Through programs of tree-planting, open seminars in civic and environmental development, support for locally owned businesses and promotion of “reduce, reuse and recycle,” significant progress was made in transitioning to a model of sustainable development, food security and environmental protection. In 2004, Dr. Wangari Maathai was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her tireless work to empower local leadership, female leadership and environmental stewardship. So, the actual devastation of Kenya was tackled, not by a lion’s roar, but by grassroots activism, community solidarity and the empowerment of women and other marginalized groups; by viewing poverty and environmental degradation as linked, rather than competing concerns. Does that sound more like the philosophy of Disney’s lions, or their hyenas?

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koMunNH1J3Y”]

“Changing the top if you don’t have the grassroots is almost impossible” – Dr. Wangari Maathai

Now, I’m not advocating ripping our leaders apart, unless that’s an African predator metaphor for dismantling their institutions and redistributing their power. But would Shenzi, mascot of sarcastic intersectional feminists everywhere, abandon her Hyena Clan to be an honorary lion? No, no, and a thousand times no, my fellow hyena bitches. That is not how real hyenas roll. So, go ahead. Rewatch The Lion King. Revel in its lush, hand-drawn animation, epic sweep and stirring music. Celebrate Julie Taymor’s Tony awards, and her bringing much-needed normalization (a.k.a. “diversity”) to Broadway with the triumphant stage adaptation’s Black cast. But don’t you ever, for one second, forget that we’re the hyenas. Until hyenas have their own historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the lions. No king! No king! Lalalalalaaala!!

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFtBjc1dz7w”]

See also at Bitch Flicks: “Ten Documentaries About Political Women”

Brigit McCone cries when Mufasa dies. Every bloody time. She writes and directs short films, radio dramas and The Erotic Adventures of Vivica (as Voluptua von Temptitillatrix). Her hobbies include doodling and clicking this link.

Tropes vs. Princes: Sexism-in-Drag in Modern Disney Princess Films

While #Gamergate has not yet officially rebranded itself as #EpicStreisandEffect, the one heartwarming thing about a mob trying to silence their critics is how bad they are at it. The inflammatory atmosphere created by #Gamergate makes it difficult for balanced discussion of Sarkeesian’s critiques, but one interesting aspect that recently occurred to me is how neatly six of her tropes fit the portrayal of men in recent Disney Princess films (from 1989’s ‘The Little Mermaid’ onwards).

This is a guest post by Brigit McCone.

While #Gamergate has not yet officially rebranded itself as #EpicStreisandEffect, the one heartwarming thing about a mob trying to silence their critics is how bad they are at it. The inflammatory atmosphere created by #Gamergate makes it difficult for balanced discussion of Anita Sarkeesian’s critiques, but one interesting aspect that recently occurred to me is how neatly six of her tropes fit the portrayal of men in recent Disney Princess films (from 1989’s The Little Mermaid onwards).

Since the Disney Princess film is almost as male-dominated as video games (Frozen‘s Jennifer Lee was the first female director of a Disney feature), this appears less a genuine reversal than a clumsy “sexism-in-drag” aimed at empowering young girls. But it offers a golden opportunity for female viewers to interrogate our response: do these tropes empower us when reversed? Do we recognize them as sexist? Would they still be dehumanizing if applied equally to male and female characters?

THE DUDEZEL IN DISTRESS

“TROPES VS. WOMEN” SOURCE: The Damsel in Distress

The “dudezel in distress” is a plot device in which a male character is placed in a perilous situation, from which he cannot escape on his own, and must be rescued by a female character. Traditionally, the “dudezel in distress” is a family member or a love interest.

DISNEY DUDEZELS: Among family members, Maurice in Beauty and The Beast (which had a female screenwriter, incidentally) is a classic example of “Dudezel Dad.” His kidnapping forces Belle to risk her life to rescue him, while his pitiful attempt to rescue her is actively counterproductive – his near-death drives Belle to risk her safety again. Both the Beast and Gaston hold Belle hostage by the threat of locking up Maurice, who is consistently punished for attempts to assert agency or independence. Other female characters whose plot arcs are motivated by rescuing their fathers include Ariel of The Little Mermaid (father petrified as worm-creature) and Mulan (father’s peril motivates daughter to take up arms).

The “love interest” as “dudezel in distress” is yet more troubling: girls are taught through this trope that love is the inevitable result of gratitude, rather than the dudezel’s own choice. Take The Little Mermaid: not only does Ariel rescue Eric from drowning, Eric’s inability to love her is depicted as the direct result of his failure to recognize the girl who rescued him. Similarly, Pocahontas must save her love interest, John Smith; Mulan must repeatedly rescue her love interest Shang; Tiana must rescue gold-digging Naveen from his entrapment as a frog. Disney offers no examples of women rescuing men who choose not to become romantically involved with them; being rescued is shown to obligate the dudezel in every case. As such, this trope cannot be seen as empowerment, but as a harmful lesson for girls that also alienates male audiences.

MEN IN REFRIGERATORS

“TROPES VS. WOMEN” SOURCE: Women in Refrigerators

“Men in Refrigerators” refers to the trope of men suffering a loss of powers, brutal violation or an untimely, gruesome death, most often as a plot point for the female hero to seek revenge or further her heroic journey.

DISNEY FRIDGE-DUDES: The best example of violation in the Disney universe is that of Eric by the witch Ursula in The Little Mermaid. His mind and control over his emotions are utterly violated to motivate Ariel’s final confrontation with Ursula and completion of her heroic journey. The traumatic effects on Eric are never shown; Ariel’s response is centered. This rewrites the original story, where the prince chose the mermaid’s rival freely and she learned to accept his choice: surely a better model. Male characters suffering loss of powers to motivate female heroines include Ariel’s father, Triton, and Jasmine’s father, the Sultan, reduced to worm-creature and jester respectively. Male characters killed to facilitate the heroine’s journey include Tiana’s father, whose death motivates her desire for a restaurant, and thus the whole plot of The Princess and the Frog, and the Beast in Beauty and the Beast, whose traumatic murder allows Belle to realize her feelings for him. Once again, its use of ‘men in refrigerators’ reinforces a utilitarian attitude to male characters in Disney Princess films.

MANIC PIXIE DREAM DUDE

“TROPES VS. WOMEN” SOURCE: Manic Pixie Dream Girl

The Manic Pixie Dream Dude is a bubbly, shallow male character written in order to help the female character learn to loosen up and enjoy life. Typically, the Manic Pixie Dream Dude has no job or defined interests of his own.

DISNEY PIXIE DREAM-DUDES: Disney’s most obvious Manic Pixie Dream Dude is Prince Naveen of The Princess and the Frog. The heroine, Tiana, has clear career ambitions, loyalty and responsibilities which cause her life to lack joy. Manic Pixie Naveen, despite being a prince, has no independent career or goals and adjusts seamlessly to working in Tiana’s restaurant: he exists to facilitate her goals, while exuding fun, madcap spontaneity and irresponsible wildness to help the heroine embrace joy. Similarly, Rapunzel in Tangled has a clear sense of responsibility, moral values, a conflicted relationship with mother-figure Gothel and the goal of reuniting with her parents. Flynn is the perfect foil: he exists to be a fun and wild antidote to Gothel’s influence, but assimilates to Rapunzel’s lifestyle in the end by abandoning his personal goals (or rather, by being revealed as an orphan who lacks all ties and purpose, and who is explicitly told that his dream of wealth and empowerment “sucks”). He also exhibits a tendency to petty crime that TV Tropes identifies as typical of Manic Pixie Dream Girls. In both cases, the empowerment of the female character is portrayed as a wish fulfillment only realizable through disempowerment of the males.

STRAW CHAUVINIST

“TROPES VS. WOMEN” SOURCE: The Straw Feminist

The Straw Chauvinist is an exaggerated caricature of a chauvinist, filled with misrepresentations, oversimplifications and stereotypes.

DISNEY STRAW CHAUVINIST: Gaston, from Beauty and the Beast, is the clearest example of a Straw Chauvinist in Disney film. Acting as the sole representative of masculine sexual assertiveness and self-confidence within the film (unless you count the comedy-relief candlestick), Gaston implicitly associates these features with self-satisfied ignorance, kidnap, blackmail and the persecution of the mentally ill: “No-one plots like Gaston, takes cheap shots like Gaston, likes to persecute harmless crackpots like Gaston.” Everything from the masculine desire for physical enhancement through body-building and protein-ingestion (“I eat five dozen eggs, so I’m roughly the size of a barge”) to the stereotypical male habit of spitting (“I’m especially good at expectorating”) is, through Gaston, made to appear ridiculous, over-the-top and unnecessary. The purpose is to separate the male lead, Beast, from any association with chauvinism that might be provoked by the character’s being huge, hairy and creepily controlling towards women. This clearly parallels the Veronica Mars example that Sarkeesian cites as “straw feminism,” where the independent, intelligent Veronica is separated from any association with “those kind of feminists” through the use of exaggerated, straw feminist caricatures. Is this, then, one of “the most disgusting tropes ever forged in Mt. Doom” or a reasonable way to use the very ridiculousness of feminist caricatures to separate them from actual feminism? Certainly, the worrying aspect of Disney’s “straw chauvinist” trope is not that it “discredits” chauvinism, but that it normalizes the abusive behavior of Beast through his contrast with Gaston; the “straw chauvinist” shifts the emphasis to ridicule of a stereotyped image rather than identification of harmful behaviors.

VAMPERMAN

“TROPES VS. WOMEN” SOURCE: The Evil Demon Seductress TV Trope: The Vamp

The Vamperman, or “evil demon seducer,” is a sexualized man who lures women into his evil web, using his sexuality as a weapon.

DISNEY VAMPERMEN: Strangely for family fare, modern Disney films are full of this trope: Jafar, Scar, Hades, Claude Frollo. Portrayed as manipulative, conniving and controlling men, in each case they exert power over the female leads in a sexualized manner: Princess Jasmine must kiss Jafar to save Aladdin; Scar’s rape threat to Nala was cut from The Lion King film but retained in the stage show; Claude Frollo has an entire “Hellfire” aria about his sexual urges for Esmeralda; Hades literally owns the soul of Megara and uses this to stroke and cuddle her to her visible disgust. Not only do the characters use sex as weapon, they are inappropriately sexualized themselves: tall, aquiline, sardonic and acted by velvet-voiced charisma bombs like Jeremy Irons or James Woods. Dracula’s (the novel’s) description of its female vamps’ “deliberate voluptuousness that was both thrilling and repulsive” seems apt for Disney’s charismatic Vampermen. A streak of theatrical camp is often used to supposedly disarm the predator’s sexual threat, creating the Camper Vamperman variant. Vampermen allow female viewers to objectify the character’s “thrillingly repulsive voluptuousness,” while confirming what Sarkeesian might term “sexist, preconceived notions” that men are manipulative, deceitful, and sexually threatening.

MR. FANSERVICE

“TROPES VS. WOMEN” SOURCE: Women As Background Decoration TV Trope: Ms. Fanservice

Mr. Fanservice, or “men-as-background-decoration” is the practice of presenting hypersexualized men as ornamental decoration.

DECORATIVE DISNEY DUDES: While Ursula, the voluptuous and brazenly confident villain of The Little Mermaid has become a gay icon to the plus-sized lesbian community, who could claim that Triton’s torso is a realistic standard to offer aging males? The men of Disney are repeatedly presented as bizarrely pumped, fit and sexualized, wearing far less clothing than their female counterparts, all while the actual act of bodily self-improvement is ruthlessly mocked through figures like Gaston. How did these other dudes get their rock-hard abs? By unrealistic body image alone, apparently. Perhaps the most glaring example of “men as background decoration” is the character of “The Entire Chinese Army” in Mulan. Not only is “The Army” a background decoration in the sense of being utterly useless at repelling Hun invasions when compared with a single adolescent girl, but said girl’s invasive ogling of their nudity under false pretenses is trivialized as a subject of humor.

“The Entire Chinese Army” is only allowed to serve a purpose when dressed as women, intensifying the emasculation of male viewers.

However, the presentation of these male soldiers-in-drag as laughable highlights the overall problem with “sexism-in-drag”: it reinforces the inferiority of female gender roles while empowering women through their fictional reversal, and it affirms to male viewers that female empowerment can only be achieved by male emasculation. Male-dominated Disney Princess Film encourages a model of “Little Miss Chauvinism” that adds up to little more than a Ms. Male Character trope. Compare Jennifer Lee’s Frozen – not only does it prioritize unselfish love between women, ending the isolation of the Strong Woman, it affirms “everywoman” heroine Anna’s own empowerment as key to her abandonment of rescuer prince fantasies in favor of her unselfish, “everyman” counterpart. In other words, Frozen presents female empowerment as essential to enhanced appreciation of the male, rather than opposed to it.

However, the enduring popularity of other Disney Princess films does demonstrate that young girls are as susceptible to ideologies of empowerment-through-inequality, and to utilitarian attitudes toward men, as boys are toward women. Nor should the responsibility of female screenwriters be ignored in assessing “Little Miss Chauvinism” archetypes. Does Frozen, then, point the way toward a new paradigm, the integrated empowerment of both male and female? Must female empowerment otherwise be confined to a world of fictional escapism by its assumed incompatibility with male empowerment? Is it possible to merge the “pink” and “blue” aisles into a single, empowering cinema for children? As always, keep in mind that it’s entirely possible to be critical of some aspects of media, while finding other aspects valuable or enjoyable.

Brigit McCone adored The Little Mermaid growing up (but weirdly overidentified with Sebastian the reggae crab), writes and directs short films and radio dramas and is the author of The Erotic Adventures of Vivica under her cabaret pseudonym Voluptua von Temptitillatrix. Her hobbies include doodling and satirically endorsing dating sites.

Women and Gender in Musicals Week: The Lion King: Just Good, or Feminist Good?

This review by FeministDisney previously appeared at Bitch Flicks as part of our series on Animated Children’s Films.

Nala to Simba: “Pinned you again.”

Overall FeministDisney Rating: **, 2/4 stars (see below for specific categories that feed into this)

The Lion King is an interesting movie to pick apart. I think when it comes to anthropomorphized casts, it’s almost more difficult, at first, to examine it critically in terms of how it portrays humans. After all, when you think “Feminism” + “Disney,” who thinks to critique The Lion King? I didn’t, at first.

But truth be told: there is much to critique here.

I should say first, let’s throw the whole “But this is how lions act” argument out the window. Lions are not actually “kings” of all animals; they do not actually get along with prey when they’re feeling like singing a song, or learn to eat bugs from them; when (male) lions become subadults, they have to leave their pride, and no, they can never come back. Etc., etc., etc.

So none of this “Disney just portrayed it that way because it’s that way in real life” ish. This isn’t the National Geographic Channel.

One big, happy family?

So anyhow. It’s very noticeable in this movie that male characters take the center stage, and female characters take a backseat to the action. Simba, Mufasa, Scar, Rafiki, Zazu, Timon, Pumbaa (these are all characters that take up a significant amount of screen time) versus … Nala. Sarabi was there but existed as little more than a supportive nurturing background character who took a backsteat to Simba’s relationship with his father. The male story and the male perspective clearly dominate. As a simple Bechdel test or more in-depth examination will tell us, this is not a single occurrence but rather a troubling reflection of movie character diversity in general.

When it comes to Nala, her role has always frustrated me a lot. Ignoring that it might not work with the plot already in place, it was quite disappointing that Nala did not take over partially or fully in Simba’s absence. She is always shown, especially early on in the film, to be Simba’s equal, and she is perhaps even more intelligent, or at least a more naturally sound leader throughout the film, while Simba tends to be comparatively a bit more immature and in need of multiple characters propelling him into responsible/rightful action. This isn’t a critique of Simba’s likeability or abilities, but merely to say that in all aspects, Nala would have made at least a decent fill-in.

Simba and the more cunning Nala

Another feminist critique of this movie (on Nala):

She comes up with better ideas then he does. She is the one who starts Simba thinking about his past and his future. Yet, despite the fact that she left the pride lands to find help, she also does not challenge Scar’s right to rule. She does little more than Sarabi to work toward getting a better life for herself and the other lionesses, only leaving the pride lands to seek help (read: a different male lion). Only when Simba returns to the lionesses stand up to Scar. This is because a new male has been found to lead them. The lionesses are very much kept in the shadow of the male lions.

Neither Sarabi nor Nala challenge the male lion’s leadership even though there is no clear reason for why they should allow him to run and ruin their entire kingdom, other than that he is male. Not even when they are starving do they speak up and act for themselves and for their people. Simba has to do it for them.

I think this is really one of the main and most problematic aspects of the film: it basically boils down to the fact that an entire group of strong female characters are unable to confront a single male oppressor; to do so, they need to be led by a dominant male. It almost sucks more that Nala is such a strong, independent, intelligent, savvy female character and still ends up constrained by this plot device. It doesn’t say a lot of positive things about the role of women or about the importance of female characters in this film.

Scar: Simba’s evil gay uncle?

When it comes to androgyny and non-binary characters in this film, it is worth noting that they all “happen” to be the evil characters: the 3 hyenas and Scar. Scar is clearly a male lion, but as has been noted previously and in many blog posts apart from mine, he is portrayed as basically the “gay evil uncle” owing to his effeminate gestures/speech/appearance that are stereotypically known to be gay markers. Shenzi is presumably female but is never actually referred to as one in the movie–it is something we can only assume from the general tone of the voice. All the hyenas look very similar/are difficult to distinguish other than by voice inflection (it isn’t bad to have androgynous characters: it’s bad that they’re always cast as villains in childrens’ movies).

A piece called “Women, Race and Culture in Disney Movies” states:

The characters are animals, but their voices show racist stereotypes. Even though The Lion King takes place in Africa, two white American actors are used for the voice of Simba, the hero. However, the hyenas who are bad characters in the film, speak non-standard English and are played by actors like Whoopi Goldberg and Cheech Marin. The villain, Scar, suggests homosexuality.

While I do agree with some of the observations, many readers have pointed out that the cast is pretty diverse and both good and evil characters have “black” and “white” voices so neither one is necessarily villainized. I don’t think it’s accidental though that Simba/Mufasa/everyone are very bright and light colored, while the Hyenas and Scar are a lot darker. While this has been a traditional coding for good/evil in film, I think it’s pretty obvious for children watching who the good and bad guy is, rendering this device unnecessary. But since it’s still there in the movie it could, rather than being a helpful cue, actually helping to instill subconscious notions of morality relating to the color of your skin.

Another review states:

Many critics saw a racial subtext to the villainous outsiders, noting that the racialized voices of the hyenas hewed to hackneyed stereotypes of African American and Hispanic threats to nice kids from the suburbs who stray too far from home.

Racialized hyenas?

Don’t get me wrong here: I loved The Lion King when it came out in 1994. I was 5 years old and I wanted that movie on VHS sooo badly that I created this “moving train” of paper characters to show my mom in hopes that she would realize that we had to have it since I loved it enough to create a paper train (so started my life of unnecessarily complicated scheming!). We got it as a gift when my brother was born, and I had a Zazu stuffed toy that I carried everywhere like a doll for a year or two.

So yeah, it’s a great film, but that doesn’t make it a great feminist film.

Promotion/Equal Voice given to women: *
Representation of Women present (are they more than typecasts of female stereotypes etc): ***
Racism/Classism: **
LGBTQ representation: *~ (1.5)
Gender Binary adherence: *~

———-

FeministDisney runs a tumblr blog of the same name that seeks to deconstruct and examine Disney through a feminist lens. FD is a Disney fan, which is why she finds it necessary to discuss how Disney narratives can be both groundbreaking and problematic. She identifies as a feminist, an artist and a cat lover.

Animated Children’s Films: The Lion King: Just Good, or Feminist Good?