r2j2

[r2j2]

The Mad, Mad world of Alice in Wonderland

A classic childhood fairytale, Disney's 1951 interpretation of Alice in Wonderland weaves a tale of fantasy and adventure, which features a world full of curious and anthropomorphic creatures. The story prominently follows the journey of a girl named Alice who falls  into an alternate universe or reality. Alice is literally transported into another dimension, in which she encounters  "freaks," or characters that extend beyond society's perception of normalcy. From talking doorknobs to rabbits telling time and eccentric creatures having tea parties, and smoking hookah,  it is a world that encompasses  and even embraces the concept of abnormality as one of wonderment and curiosity (making it more accessible, relatable and ultimately entertaining to children and audiences).  

Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee:  Generally portrayed as mischievous twins with short attention spans, limited intelligence and tendency to cause trouble. Both are abnormally built, with short stout bodies emphasized by their constantly curious movements and facial expressions that is constantly in unison. It is as if they're not able to control their actions, and rely on each other to interact with the other characters in the film (feeding off one another's energy). They appear harmless and normal in the beginning, but throughout the film they go out of their way to confuse Alice in her journey and explorations.

Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee  (aside from the Mad Hatter and Queen) are two of the few creatures in Wonderland who embody human like factors. Ironically, the more human the creatures seem in Wonderland, the more bizarre and surreal they turn out to be (case in point, the White Rabbit). The concept of a freak is not solely based on the persons's outer appearance, but also their behavior and relative perception of normalcy within their environment. 

Cheshire Cat: The Cheshire Cat appears at several points in the film, standing in for the state of Alice's mind. This is emphasized by him fading in and out of existence and confusing her with meaningless instructions. The Cat almost seems unreal, like a figment of Alice's imagination as opposed to an actual creature. His abstract existence makes Alice question her own sanity, indicating that she is the "freak"or insane one because she cannot understand their world. In this case, Alice is portrayed as the one who is an outcast, sticking out from society because of her decision to be "normal.

Caterpillar : Though only three inches high, the Caterpillar exudes confidence and sophistication that disarms Alice. Despite his small size, he wholly embraces his physical appearance and seems to look down on Alice for her lack of unusual characteristics, a common theme throughout the movie. 

Mad Hatter: One of the most charismatic and well known characters of the film, the Hatter is essentially known, for being - well, mad. He is humorous, cheerful, scatterbrained, and slightly off-kilter, traits that seem to hint at a form of social and mental disability. From his skittering conversations to defying the laws of nature by eating plates, cups, and other indelible items, it is apparent that he is considered one of the most unusual inhabitants of Wonderland. His naivety and curiosity of Alice's whereabouts and origins seem more to be out of genuine interest rather than judgment of her "abnormalities" within Wonderland. Other film portrayals, such as Tim Burton's 2010 film adaptation, portray the Hatter in a more somber tone, his eccentricities and unusual behavior explained due to unfortunate events and circumstances. His social (and some suggest) mental disabilities, however, only make him more endearing to Alice as well as audiences. Hatter's persona establishes yet defies stereotypes of disability. Though he is undoubtedly unusual, he wholeheartedly accepts it and thrives in his "madness." 

Conclusion:

The film, inspired by Lewis Carroll's classic novel, essentially questions the idea of whether disability is a physical or mental limitation or an aspect that has evolved out of societal expectations and standards. According to reports, Carroll himself suffered from the disorders micropsia and macropsia, a neurological condition that altered his perception of certain objects (e.g. large objects looked small and vice versa). In fact, the author's disability inspired the overall creative direction of the film, with the disorder being colloquially known as the "Alice in Wonderland" syndrome in homage to the author. Alice's perception is radically altered as she explores a world where normalcy is reversed and "freaks" are considered  the status quo. It's as if disability inspired him to create a world in which perception is distorted, and disability is merely a social classification as opposed to concrete fact. Carroll seems to connect his own experiences of disability through the novel, a concept that the film successfully encompasses. It embraces the idea of abnormality as a positive, more whimsical alternative to the negative connotations of the disabled portrayed in modern media. As such, the film challenges audiences to reconsider their views pertaining to differences and disability, and of viewing these differences in a non-judgmental way. 

[r2j2]

The Little Mermaid : Silence is Golden. Or is it?

As one of the most iconic and loved "Disney Princesses," the Little Mermaid epitomizes what Disney films are all about. Released in 1989, the classic re-telling of Hans Christian Andersen's film romanticizes the idea of sacrificing one's most treasured possession (in this case, Ariel's beautiful voice and musical abilities) for the sake of true love. Throughout the film, Ariel is portrayed as a lively, curious, and charming daughter of King Triton, ruler of the oceans and merpeople. She is well loved by her peers yet seen as an outcast because of her burning curiosity and interest in the human world. 

Understandably, Ariel feels restricted by the confines of the palace and monotony of ocean life. As a result, she rebels against her overprotective father by swimming up to the surface and observing the humans. In the process, Ariel encounters and ends up rescuing Erik, a handsome human prince that she falls in love with instantly. Desperate to be human and win his affection, Ariel agrees to sell her voice to sea witch and villain Ursula. The  particular scene below captures Disney's interpretation of disability as a curse or tragedy, another misconception heightened by the media industry.

Little does Ariel know how difficult it is to communicate with Erik without her voice, a theme throughout the film that emphasizes how difficult and frustrating it is to be "silenced" because of her disability. Despite her initial strength, confidence and effervescence in the beginning of the film, it's as if her strength and determination slowly fade as she is unable to speak or express her emotions to Erik. Though he gradually falls in love with her, he is hesitant to commit because he is in love with the "girl who rescued him and sang to him" during his recovery. He is not aware that it was Ariel this entire time, and as a result still pines for someone he believes is still out there. 

This movie highlights key aspects of society and how we perceive disability as a burden, or an obstacle that stands in the way of fulfilling goals or achievements. Ariel had only lost her voice temporarily, but it's as if she automatically lost some of the spirt or personality we had seen earlier in the film.  She is portrayed as a victim, one that deserves our pity and sympathy because she is unable to speak. In true Disney fashion, however, Erik realizes that it was Ariel that saved his life,  falling in love with her and reversing Ursula's curse. Though the film culminates with a happy ending (e.g., Ariel's permanent transformation into human form and subsequent marriage to Erik), it still does not dispel the stereotypes prevalent among mass society pertaining to the disabled today. 

The "Disney Princess"  franchise is known to perpetuate a certain image for its audience:  themes of romance, fantasy and imagination, with beautiful  and seemingly perfect women as its heroines. Tom Shakespeare, in his article "Art and Lies: Representations of Disability on Film," concedes that the media industry thrives on these stereotypes and as artists have the right to creative license. But when does it cross the line? Though Disney has undoubtedly provided some of the most influential and emblematic heroines of our generation, one can't help but argue how their formula only serves to preserve negative stereotypes of disability in our society. After all, Ariel did not have to get her voice back in order to win over Erik, but they still felt that it was necessary to provide a "true" happy ending that didn't include physical limitations. As Nelson pointed out, American film and media is extremely influential in how people perceive the disabled community (Nelson . By continually portraying the disabled as pitiful and sympathetic individuals, American media  continues to reinforce the idea that the disabled don't typically have happy endings and are at most tolerated as opposed to seen as a heroine. I think it's important to consider these parallels, as well as the issues behind constantly portraying women (in this case, a disabled female) as helpless individuals. Though not intentional, it definitely sends the wrong message from a young age, further establishing stereotypes that should be eradicated rather than romanticized. 

Sources:

Jack Nelson, "Broken Images: Portrayals of Those with Disabilities in American Media"

Tom Shakespeare, "Art and Lies? Representations of Disability on Film"

[r2j2]

Ad Campaign Explained + Social Media Integration

With our 6 ads, we tried to capture the essence of Disney magic while bringing into the picture (literally) how we feel disabilities could be better represented in Disney and media. Interpretation of the ads are definitely up for discussion and we have put in place a variety of avenues to do so.

First, we distributed the ads via tumblr. The ads have already been reblogged a few times and we hope to see it continue to be reblogged. In addition, we have tweeted links to the ads on the blog via Twitter and we hope to see people retweet the ads as well. Finally, we created a Facebook page for our blog under the category of Education/Community and titled it "Disnability" like our blog title. We hope to foster discussion about our ads as well as our blog as a whole on the Facebook page. Our hope is that through "wall sharing" and word-of-mouth sharing, we will be able to gain exposure for our blog and our ads.

Most importantly, we hope that the ads will challenge the mainstream perception of disabilities in media and that people will share their input with us.

[r2j2]

Why Do Many Villains Possess Disabilities?

Have you ever wondered why in Disney movies, many of the disabled characters tend to be the bad guys? In popular entertainment media today, why is it that many villains are portrayed as having disabilities? What is the connection there?

Is it the idea that physical disabilities sometimes incite fear and discomfort or appear to be "menacing" and threatening? Or rather, is our idea of disabilities as something appalling and negative brought on by the media we consume and as a result, perpetuate more of this notion in the media we produce?

To me, I see a never ending cycle in our portrayal of media. Our output of creation and ideas are entirely under the influence of the information we are fed.

So why disabilities? Some of my peers have already covered specific examples of disabilities being portrayed by villains, but my hope is to discuss why this trend even exists in the first place. In Why I Burned My Book and Other Essays on Disability, Paul K. Longomore states, “Giving disabilities to villainous characters reflects and reinforces, albeit in exaggerated fashion, three common prejudices against handicapped people: disability is a punishment for evil; disabled people are embittered by their ‘fate’: disabled people resent the nondisabled and would, if they could, destroy them” (Longmore 134). Take Captain Hook for example. He exemplifies all three of these "prejudices." First, his hand was eaten by the crocodile and can be inferred to symbolically represent punishment for being evil. Second, Captain Hook seems to be cognitively affected by the trauma of losing his hand and the handicap and disadvantage of having a hook is subtly hinted at when he fights with Peter Pan. Lastly, Captain Hook seeks to get revenge on Peter Pan and seems to be belligerent toward anyone in his way. It wouldn't be fair to say that Disney is insensitive to these depictions, but these false notions of people with disabilities are inevitably shaping how we view them. Another example of these villainous traits in Disney media is the depiction of pirates.

So what can be done about this? Although I don't see a direct solution to changing the way disabilities are represented in media, I do believe it begins with awareness. Longmore concludes with this:

The scholarly task is to uncover the hidden history of disabled people and to raise to awareness the unconscious attitudes and values embedded in media images. The political task is to liberate disabled people from the paternalistic prejudice expressed in those images and to forge a new social identity. The two are inseparable (Longmore 146).

[r2j2]

Avatar: The Last Airbender

Avatar: The Last Airbender is an animated children's show, that strangely enough a college student like myself enjoyed as well, that aired on Nickelodeon some time ago. Recently a live-action version of the cartoon series was released that did the animated series no justice and will not be discussed here as it neither serves to demonstrate the show's depiction of disability, nor provides an adequate depiction of the series' plot. "Avatar," as it will be abbreviated from here to forth also has absolutely nothing to do with James Cameron's epic " Avatar"-- just putting that out there for some clarification.

The story of Avatar is based in a mythical land, that bears some sort of asian/oriental influence, where the people have the ability to "bend" or manipulate one of the nature elements: wind, water, fire, and earth. The "Avatar," as the series is named after, is the one person who has mastered the bending of all four nature elements and is supposed to bring peace and balance to the world; and, he is the only one who can fulfill this duty. However, the Avatar has vanished and not been seen for 100 years. During these 100 years, the fire nation consisting of fire benders and their ruler the Fire Lord have begun their assault on the nations and have begun to conquer them. Herein is where the story begins; a young boy by the name of Aang appears ( he's the one in orange with an arrow on his head in the picture above). He has been frozen in a glacier for the last 100 years (because of some strange accident) and he happens to be the next avatar and is the last airbender left in the world. And so the journey begins with Aang and his several friends (Sokka, Katara, Toph, plus a few) to help him master all 4 elements as well as save the people from the fire nation and bring peace and balance to the world. Alright. Readers, you may think i am now crazy to have bothered investigating into this strange mythical world, or that the story is ridiculous and "who would watch this stuff?" But, it has indeed proven to me a surprising level of depth for a children's show as well as a point of view that takes into light the subject of disability with an interesting grain of salt, one that disproves many stereotypes that some other cartoons have demonstrated. The first example of disabilities in the series lies in the character of Prince Zuko of the Fire Nation. This i left out in the earlier plot summary, but Prince Zuko is chasing Aang because of complicated order his father (the Fire Lord) gave to him, which shall be included in the following analysis.

Prince Zuko of the Fire Nation:

Prince Zuko bears a burn scar on a large portion of the left side of his face. Zuko's scar resulted from an incident when he spoke out of turn at a Fire Nation war meeting upon hearing one of the general's plan to sacrifice an entire division composed of young recruits in battle and by doing so was forced by his father to participate in a duel. At first, he thought he would duel against the general he disrespected but it turned out to be his father, Fire Lord Ozai. Not wanting to fight him he surrendered immediately. His father called him a coward for doing so and burned his face thus giving him that scar. As a punishment, he was then banished and sent to capture the Avatar, only then would be able to return home.

Here is a picture of what the burn would probably look like in real life, instead of just the darkened red circles on Zuko's face:

Throughout the series, Zuko's character continues to cast fear and and unease upon the people he meets, not only because of his intense and understandably bitter demeanor, but also i believe because of the physical scar on his face. The issue is never addressed throughout the series except for the one time it was explained, and none of the characters ever discuss it amongst themselves.

Prince Zuko later turns good throughout the series and chops off his hair to symbolize the changing of sides. And though this may be reading too far into the simple action of cutting one's hair, i believe that there was some sort of subconscious desire to hide or cover the scar on his face. Here is a picture of him after the haircut:

As you can see, it does obscure with some subtlety the blemish on his face although it is still relatively visible. There are several sides that i believe can be argued about Zuko's character and his physical deformity.

I do applaud the show for taking a relatively accepting tone to Zuko's mark. The character never comment about the deformity nor make any crude remarks centering around it ( If they do make any mean statements, they mostly revolve about Zuko's personality as being annoyed and angry most of the time). This comes across to the children audiences as acceptance as they neither notice nor make a big deal about his difference. This is good.

However, i do see how this "ignorance" can be interpreted as just that: ignorance or a will to deny that Zuko is even different at all. Everyone that Zuko encounters in the show say nothing, absolutely NOTHING about his scar. Even random strangers on the street whom he talks to don't give him any looks, or behave in any strange way ( not that they should, mind you), but what is the point of giving him a scar if he has no difficulty overcoming it or the opportunity to prove to people that he is more than that. Ok, that may have come off a little offensive, and i apologize it it was. But i do believe that there is a little bit of an unrealistic portrayal of how some people really do react to unattractive scars, especially if they are on someone's face. So then i suppose i could ask, Does Zuko's scar even count as a disability? Besides perhaps slightly impairing the vision in his left eye.

Of course the evil character has to look not as good as the others. Jack Nelson, in his article " Broken Images: Portrayals of Those with Disabilities in American Media," states "The image of a threatening, evil character who also has a prominent disability plays on subtle and deeply held fears and stereotypical prejudices" (Nelson, 6). Nickelodeon has fallen into this stereotype in this way; it has made one of the primary "evil" characters look somewhat unappealing and strange- especially so with Zuko's foreign hairstyle in the beginning of the series that visibly highlights his scar.

So, my conclusion about the character of Prince Zuko is that, for the most part he does seem to be accepted for who he is in spite of his physical blemish, which i do believe and hope was the message that the creators and producers of the show were trying to get across. Although, I also still believe that there is some support in the subconscious of humans for the theory that most evil characters in cartoons need to possess some form of a deformity. And that is something that needs to be disproved as it is very  untrue and so i will clarify here: Prince Zuko who has a physical deformity that can be categorized as a disability IS ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS. And now to move on to another character who has a disability, but starts out as one of the good guys.

The " Supercrip" Toph Bei Fong

Toph Bei Fong is a 12-year-old girl who is an earthbending master. She was born blind, but has never let that disability stop her from achieving anything she wants.

When she enters the series, it is shown that her parents are overprotective and constantly believe that she is weak and vulnerable to everything around her. In order to prevent her from harming herself (or anyone else, for that matter), they kept her at the beginning level of earthbending and had guards to keep a close watch on her at all times. They also hid her existence, keeping knowledge about life away from the public for fear of ridicule. Despite these hindrances and prejudices, because Toph has a " special ability to see," not only has she mastered earthbending through sense of feel, but she can also bend metal- something that no one has been able to do. There is much to say about this character:

Toph, at first, is portrayed as a stereotyped disabled child- protected from the world, cannot do anything by herself: much like how Nelson explains it in his article "Disabled people are usually depicted as childlike or as incompetent, needing total care, as nonproductive in our society." As Toph is both a child and depicted as needing total care, she fits perfectly into the stereotype of the disabled person as pitiable and pathetic. However, the creators of Avatar quickly show their viewers how this stereotype is completely incorrect.

Toph is strong-willed and stubborn. She is eager to prove herself to her parents and to Aang and his friends when she first meets them. Because of her upbringing, Toph has developed an unhuman-like ability to be able to "see" with her feet-- she feels the vibration of the earth in order to judge distance to things, people, and moving objects,etc. She also has an unhuman ability to hear as exemplified in an episode when she was able to hear a person's heart beating faster due to their nerves. Thus, these advancements in "seeing," allowed her to be a master at earthbending and gave her the ability to be completely dependent upon herself. She is a perfect example of a "Supercrip" According to Rachel M. in "Stop Harping on What We Can't Do and Start Thinking About Who We Are,"        Supercrip provides a way for non-disabled folks to be “inspired” by persons          with disabilities without actually questioning—or making changes to—how            persons with disabilities are treated in society.... Supercrip cannot just be             human; she or he must be superhuman and surpass not only her/his                     disability, but the realms of “normal” human achievement. Supercrip allows           some non-disabled folks to feel better about themselves; this is quite evident       when it comes to statements like, “What an inspiration!” Nelson also discusses the Supercrip in his article and argues that " A lot of ordinary disabled people are made to feel like failures if they haven't done something extraordinary." Thus, Avatar has succumbed to one of the stereotypes of portraying disabled people by depicting Toph as a supercrip. However, i believe the message swings towards the more inspiring spectrum for children as that they are taught that even if they have a disability such as blindness, " You can accomplish anything, despite what people may say." And i'm sticking to that.

Toph's behavior is constantly defensive, assumably so because of her blindness. She makes several quips in the show at the beginning of " Oh sure, pity the poor blind girl." This may give off a similar defensive vibe as Prince Zuko exerts as depicted above. Both disabled characters are grumpy and sarcastic, much less carefree and happy as the other characters. Once again, this seems to be some sort of subconscious character trait associated with people with disabilities- they are grumpy and don't seem to be entirely happy with their lives... at first. Toph does end up softening towards the ends as she finds fulfillment in who she is and what she has accomplished, as well as her newfound friends who like her for who she is.

There is so much more i could say about this character, but i must come to a close. Despite and in spite on these qualities, Toph comes off as lovable and funny. Aang and the gang never patronize her for her blindness and accept her for who she is. Conclusion: Although Avatar: Airbender does possess some of the stereotypes associated with disabilities, the dominating message that it delivers to children as well as its vast not-children audience is that disabilities are to be accepted and treated with normalcy.

[r2j2]

Analysis of Monster's Inc - A World of Freaks

One of the most successful animated films of the 21st century, Monster's Inc. made the concept of the "freak," and abnormality more accessible and relatable to modern audiences and viewers. Like Dreamworks, Disney/Pixar took an unorthodox approach and developed a film that focused on creatures traditionally perceived as scary or villainous. Ironically, the "freak" portrayed in this film are not the monsters, but a human, a little girl nicknamed "Boo" who had mistakenly found her way into the Monster world. Though their primary source of energy and resources come from the human world,they were taught to fear every aspect of the human world, to keep them at a distance because they are dangerous and different. This movie inherently works to dispel the stereotypes that arise due to ignorance and lack of knowledge of other social groups (in this case, monsters versus humans).

Viewers are given a whole new perspective of disability, in which our role is reversed and humans are feared for their "abnormality." This film, albeit in a humorous manner, shows that disability is essentially in the eye of the beholder, one that is not necessarily defined by physical and mental limitations. It is mainly based on societal perception and acceptance, of people looking past physical deformities and abnormalities and learning to interact with one another in one integrated society. Fear of disability (and in this case, the freak)  is only heightened by ignorance and lack of knowledge. If main characters, Mike, Sully, and the rest of the Monster world had known more about the human world, Boo would not have seemed like a threat or hazard. "Freaks" are essentially what you make of the person, a title or category that you place on someone that happens to be different from the rest of society. There is no right or wrong to the concept of normalcy, and I think this movie does a wonderful job at viewing disabilities and difference in a positive light.

Conclusion: 

This film made me think about two articles we had read in class, one entitled  "The Horror of Becoming One of Us, Todd Browning's Freaks and Disability", by Sally Chivers, and one by Nicole Markotic, entitled "Disturbing the Viewer: Perceptions of Disability in Todd Browning's Freaks." They break down the stereotypes of the disabled that are portrayed within the film "Freaks." In particular, they also discuss how Hollywood perceives and values perfection of the human body, and how "Freaks" threatened that idealized image.

The film was revolutionary in the sense that it portrayed people who were disabled as "normal" beings, the protagonists rather than villains. It encouraged viewers to sympathize with the plight of the disabled, a community that was traditionally shunned and ignored by modern society.

Like "Freaks," viewers of Monster's Inc. are not typically accustomed to the image of the disabled. Mike, Sully, and the rest of the Monster world are "humanized" and seen in a more humorous light, challenging Hollywood's perception of deformity as villainous and somber. By focusing instead on Boo's influence, we become more sympathetic to the protagonists, even if they look unusual or abnormal to us initially. Markotic and Chivers thus argue that normalcy isn't necessarily determined by one's physical characteristics, but by societal ideals. The film was succeeds in the sense that it featured characters that completely defied Hollywood's traditional ideal of physicality and beauty. 

Sources:

Sally Chivers, "The Horror of Becoming ‘One of Us’: Tod Browning’s Freaks and Disability,"Screening Disability, Ed, Christopher Smit and Anthony Enns (57-64)

Nicole Markotic, "Disabling the Viewer: Perceptions of Disability in Tod Browning’s Freaks,"Screening Disability, Ed, Christopher Smit and Anthony Enns (65-72)

[r2j2]

Quest for Camelot

Quest for Camelot is a fictional children's fantasy story based loosely around King Arthur and the story of Excalibur. A brief, brief summary of the film's story line is that the story of excalibur has been stolen and then consequently lost. Kayley, the girl in the image above, who's father was a knight at King Arthur's round table before he was killed, decides to go after searching for the sword. Along the way, she meets several disabled characters and picks up some friends along the way to retrieving the sword and returning to Camelot. A better summary can be found online, but for the purposes of our disabilities focus, this will suffice. One of the major characters in the film is Garrett, who happens to be blind. Garrett

Garrett used to be a stable boy in Camelot until an accident left him blind. After the accident, surprisingly enough, Kayley's father taught Garrett how to survive and function with his disability. I'm not entirely sure why Garrett moved out into the wilderness alone, but i am assuming it is because he felt outcast because of his disability. He confesses in the film that he once desired to become a knight, but that dream was lost when Kayley's father passed.

Garrett's explains his story at approximately 6 minutes.

Garrett's character exhibits some of the same characteristic as discussed in the "Avatar: Airbender" post written on this blog as the two characters in both films share the same disability- blindness. For most of the film, as is most children's films, Garrett's blindness seems to go unnoticed as he is perceived as pretty much normal. However, his blindness also causes several important scenes to occur in the film. Now to investigate Garrett's depiction in the film and how his disability is portrayed:

Garrett is displayed as a Supercrip. As quoted before, according to Rachel M. in “Stop Harping on What We Can’t Do and Start Thinking About Who We Are,” "Supercrip provides a way for non-disabled folks to be “inspired” by persons with disabilities without actually questioning—or making changes to—how persons with disabilities are treated in society…. Supercrip cannot just be human; she or he must be superhuman and surpass not only her/his disability, but the realms of “normal” human achievement. Supercrip allows some non-disabled folks to feel better about themselves; this is quite evident when it comes to statements like, “What an inspiration!”" Garrett functions with his disability through an uncanny and almost inhuman ability to hear, sense direction, and mobilize with his walking stick. Albeit, he does receive a little help from his falcon friend Aiden, Garrett's depiction of a realistic blind person is a little far fetched. Not to seem patronizing to blind people in general, but i believe Garrett's portrait of a disabled person is indeed a little, to repeat the term, patronizing. It gives children the expectation that all blind and/or disabled people should be able to lead from rock to rock in a pit of molten lava with the help of a falcon, or be able to cross a highway while skillfully dodging 80mph cars ( this part is not in the movie, i'm just comparing)

Garrett's personality is also very defensive, following the "Legacy of Negativitism" that Jack Nelson discusses in his article ” Broken Images: Portrayals of Those with Disabilities in American Media. He states, "the personality traist most depicted were ' dull, impotent, selfish, defensive, and uncultured." Garrett exemplifies some of these qualities: he is selfish as when he first meets Kayley, he refuses to help her and wants to "stand alone." "I Stand Alone" sang by Bryan Adams.

Ironically enough, Garrett see's Kayley (the not disabled person) as the burden, with Kayley begging to accompany Garrett through the forbidden forest in search of Excalibur.

Garrett also fulfills the stereotype of " The Disabled Person Unable to Live a Successful Life." He feels ostracized in the civilized city of Camelot and so he barricades himself alone in the forbidden forest so that he wouldn't have to deal with people. Media has stereotyped people with disabilities as being defined by their disabilities:" they (disabled) are seldom seen in normal situations such as the workplace, carrying out their daily affairs, as they do in reality." --> Point made, Garrett lives in a forbidden forest with people eating rocks and walking, flying flowers. Far from normal.

Another set of characters in the film that portrays disability are the conjoined dragons Cornwall and Devon. Cornwall and Devon Cornwall and Devon are conjoined dragons that Garrett and Kayley met along their journey. The first impression audiences receive of these dragons is that they are constantly picked on and are in hiding from the other "normal" dragons. They exert their disabilities portrayal in an interestingly different way than Garrett does:

Their personalities are not defensive in any way, nor are they depressed. Cornwall and Devon both have very different personalities and the only strong opinion they seem to have is about one another. They wish desperately that they could be separated, singing an entire song about " If I Didn't Have You" they could each accomplish such great things and be considered "normal" i would say. This falls into the stereotype category of " The Disabled Person as Maladjusted"-- his own worst enemy.. literally in this case (sorry). Further along in the story, Garrett lectures the two dragons about not being able to breath fire because they were constantly bickering with one another. Therefore, their lack of teamwork caused them to be able to produce fire, thus setting them straight. Then from thereon, Cornwall and Devon could breath fire and help save the day: " such stories imply that if only disabled characters were not so bitter and would acept themselves, they would have better lives" (Nelson, 8).

"If I Didn't Have You"

A real life example of conjoined twins is Abby and Brittany Hensel. They are nineteen-year-old conjoined twins from birth. Here is a clip about them.

As the clip stated, they both have "never wished we were separated cause then we wouldn't.. ( be able to do things together)." Abby and Brittany have both lived relatively normal lives, as the narrator states, and from the looks of their lives seem to be accepted in their high school. They can also amazingly do things such as driving, which surprised me i'll have to confess. Abby and Brittany's disability (as well as Devon and Cornwall's) bring up the interesting prospect of the " Freaks," as mentioned in our class, and the topic of the human gaze. Is it alright to stare, to not stare, etc. Anyways, back to Quest for Camelot. At the end of the film, it leaves the audience with a surprising conclusion. There is a point where exclabur is restored and some sort of magical wave runs through the kingdom twice. The first time, it is shown that Devon and Cornwall receive their wish of having separate bodies. However, as soon as they are separated, they look back at one another with a sad expression and hug one another as the second magical wave runs through. (this all sounds ridiculous, but if you watch the film it'll make sense). The second wave unites them again, rendering them conjoined twins once more which is their final state that they remain in. The same situation happens with Garrett as he is granted his sight, but in the end still stays blind. So it was interesting to see that both disabled character choose to stay in their original "disabled" forms, thus re-emphasizing that disabled people are no different than normal people and should not have to want to be anybody else. I just wanted to add this in here because i have no real grounds to make any justifications for it: Kayley could potentially be a devotee because she ends up with Garrett and chooses to stay with him in the end even though he's blind. Like i said, i have no proof, but it is interesting to think about.

[r2j2]

Winnie the Pooh

"Winnie the Pooh" is a beloved childhood cartoon that i confess to even watching many many episodes of it when i was younger. The series revolves around the character of Winnie who is a pooh bear.. assumable yes a bear with yellow fur, and his adventures with his many friends in the fictional world inside a story book of the Hundred Acre Woods. Their human friend Christopher Robins visits them occasionally, though i am not entirely sure how and will delve into further in this explication. The characters in this children's cartoons though arguably are relatively innocent, can be interpreted as each interestingly having different a different mental disorder, much like the seven dwarves in Snow white.

In the article " Mental Illness in Disney Animated Films" by Andrea Lawson and Gregory Fouts, there are more than 34 coded Disney films that have represented some sort of mental disability or another (for example " crazy" or "nuts"). Because of these representations and repetition of viewership in children audiences, children may " acquire and unrealistic and stereotypic view of individuals with a mental illness in society, which could be exacerbated by their failure to distinguish between fiction and reality" (Lawson and Gregory, 28). So, here is a summary of the linked disorders that each character possesses.

Winnie the Pooh -- eating disorder

Piglet -- general anxiety disorder

Rabbit -- OCD

Tigger -- ADHD, possible substance abuse

Eeyore -- Major Deppressive/Manic Depressive

Christopher Robbin -- schizophrenic? 

Kanga/Roo -- Codependent.. eh. But they are indeed parent and child, so i will argue no real disability on this one.

Owl -- The therapist...

Winnie the Pooh:

Tigger:

Eeyore:

I personally believe that Eeyore's character is potentially one of the most harmful to children. Eeyore is always down and sad, sitting alone on the hill to watch the sky by himself. If there should be any children who admire Eeyore, they may think that being depressed and isolating oneself is .. cool.

Piglet:

Rabbit:

Christopher Robins:

[r2j2]

How to Train Your Dragon

How to Train Your Dragon is a recent Dreamworks production that was released in 2010. The story revolves around an outcast viking teenager named Hiccup who dreams of being included amongst the "normal" vikings, doing viking-like things such as killing dragons and wielding weapons. The story follows Hiccup as he accidentally (or skillfully) shoots down one of the rarest and most lethal dragons, a night fury which is a black coloured sleek dragon.The two build a friendship through the night fury- Toothless'- handicap, a missing tail fin. Through their friendship they go through great adventures that results in the re-appropriation of Viking attitude towards dragons; they learn that dragons are actually peaceful and kind creatures that only attack out of defense. The first investigation of disabilities i will make is on the character of Toothless the dragon.

Toothless: Toothless is the dragon that Hiccup accidentally captures and injures. As a result of this, the dragon is missing one of its tail fins, as can be seen below.

At first, understandably, Toothless is a little defensive towards Hiccup, not only because of the stigma that humans carry to him, but also because of his inability to escape due to his tail. Toothless, though not a human, still exhibits some of the stereotypes of disability just through his existence. Toothless is shown as helpless; he can't fly, he can't escape, and he can't even manage to catch food for himself. This is befitting of the stereotype that disabled people are helpless and that they can't really accomplish anything without help.  Without his tail fin, Toothless is powerless.  Only after Hiccup builds him a prostethetic tail fin is he able to function at a somewhat normal level, but still only with the Hiccup's help.

Much like a wheelchair or a prosthetic limb, Toothless' prosthetic fin is what enables him to achieve some sort of normalcy, thus illustrating disabled peoples' reliance upon their equipment. Another surprising depiction of disability in the film appeared at the end of the story. In a shocking turn of events, Hiccup loses his foot in the epic battle against a ginormous monster dragon. As depicted here, Hiccup attempts walking.

He is fitted with a prosthetic foot and in a heart-warming scene his dragon helps him in learning to use it, paralleling the earlier scenes in which Hiccup helped Toothless. What i think i liked the most about this portrayal of disability was, not only was it very touching to witness the bond between the two characters, but the disability was not treated with a disgusted shock of any kind. The only attention given to the fact that Hiccup lost a foot was pretty much all shown in that two minute span of Hiccup walking with his dragon to the front door of his home and making a joke to the people who welcome him about how he might tinker with the prosthetic some more. Not one makes a big deal about the loss and, while this may not be realistic and came off across as slightly dismissive, it was refreshing to see this misfortune as " the end of the world."

In the scene that follows immediately after Hiccup's acceptance of his new foot, he climbs aboard his dragon and takes off into flight as if it was just another usual day flying up in the sky. Of course that is normal behavior right after you've lost a leg. Of course.

Another character that brought about a positive light to disabled peoples is in the character Gobber.

Gobber:

Gobber is a rather burly, tough, big member of the Viking clan who despite his appearance has a soft heart and a good sense of humour. He is relatively well-balanced in spite of his missing two limbs, which i think if that happened to me, i would be scarred to some extent. But Gobber is proud of his missing limbs as depicted in a scene in the film where he appears to be enjoying telling the story of how dragons took his arm and leg, boasting that perhaps the dragon who took his arm spread the word that he was tasty so another dragon came back for his leg.

Gobber also holds a respectable position in the viking clan as the chief's right hand man (that rhymed), something that disabled characters are stereotyped as not being able to: holding a position of status over others who are not disabled. Gobber, if anything, dispproves most of the stereotypes of people with disabilities; he is not weak, he is not depressed or whiny, and he holds a position of power where people respect him and trust him.

Overall, i am pleased to conclude that the viking's in How to Train Your Dragon take a very differing standpoint on disabilities discourse. The characters seem to pride themselves upon receiving injuries and having missing limbs, which is an interesting thing to take pride in compared to the many articles that stereotype the disabled as longing to be not disabled.

So in conclusion, How to Train Your Dragon provides a good insight for children about acceptance, that even if you lose your leg.. everything will be alright. If you have a pet dragon. Just kidding. But no, really, the world does not end for the disabled, nor should they believe it will end and that is a good message to spread.

[r2j2]

Advertisement Campaign: Disnability

Note: Artwork is not original, images have been re-appropriated from original creators' artistry. 

[r2j2]

Analysis of the Seven Dwarfs

"No one's ever gonna pay a dime to see a dwarf picture"-- Lillian Disney

One of Disney’s first animated films, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937), has one of Disney’s first depictions of disability. Dwarfism, as the seven beloved dwarfs posseses, is the condition in which "growth hormone deficiency refers to abnormally short height in childhood due to the lack of growth hormone," according to the Mayo Clinic's website. The most famous dwarfs include Dopey and Doc who are depicted with more prominent signs of disability. The disabilities in the film include learning, speech and emotional impairments. 

In particular, Doc and Dopey are both dwarfs that have prominent roles in the film. Doc, the head dwarf of the seven, has a speech impediment. He has trouble with most of his verbal communication---stuttering on his words that often do not sound comprehensible. Throughout the film, Doc has to correct his words— when saying “hen”  he corrects it to mean “men” and again saying “lapel diflings” when meaning apple dumplings. It is nice to see that even with this speech difficulty Doc still can remain the head of this group of dwarfs. Disney portrays Doc as more dominant and a stronger dwarf figure, but in compared to their "normal sized" counterparts the dwarfs are still considered weaker. Doc assesses all the troubles in the group whether they be medical or argument based, hence the name "Doc". In contrast, Disney depicts Dopey in less flattering light. According to Merriam Dictionary, the word dopey is defined as “stupid, silly or foolish.” Just by naming this character as stupid, Disney suggests Dopey to be very that and furthermore suggests Dopey may be mentally challenged. Also, Dopey cannot speak-- he is mute. 

In the film, Dopey is depicted as the ultimate klutz. He is doe eyed, constantly falling over furniture and tripping over his own clothing. Dopey epitomizes Jack Nelson's definition of the pitiful disability stereotype (Nelson, 6). He acts like and dresses like a child. You cannot help but want to help Dopey. He is also depicted as "a disabled person unable to live a successful life," (Nelson, 6). Dopey is shown as defined by his disability-- I mean his name is Dopey. I find this pretty offensive, calling a person with a disability dumb or stupid would not be accepted in this day and age. I am surprised there has not been more publicity on this issue. Dopey is clearly different than any other character in the film. Furthermore, due to Dopey solitary role as the only mute character his mental disability is furthered silenced by isolation. With rolling eyes, a loose lipped tongue, physically Dopey epitomizes the discriminating stereotypical “slowness” that people with mental disabilities possess. How can this be accepted, even in the 1930s, to outwardly name someone dumb or stupid? I did enjoy Doc's role as a leader, but the depiction of Dopey as "dumb" reinforces strong negative imagery with dwarfs and persons with disability.

The seven dwarfs are not likely characters as protagonists: Doc, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, and Dopey all have supporting roles to the Evil Queen, Snow White, and the Prince. Disney depicts the seven dwarfs as hard workers, but doing remedial work. Mining is task oriented and does not display any sort of complexity. As Snow White stumbles into their lives, the dwarfs welcome her because she can cook and clean. Disney reinforces gender stereotypes and in my opinion reinforces the stereotypes associated with persons with disabilities. The seven dwarfs are also depicted as "a disabled person unable to live a successful life." The seven dwarfs are rarely shown as useful and happy members of society (Nelson, 6). Living without Snow White, the dwarfs are portrayed as inferior persons, stigmatized by their disability, and incapable to cook or clean. With Snow White serving a mother-like role, the dwarfs are depicted as finally happy and complete. The dwarfs are similar to children depending the home cooking and cleaning abilities of a “whole person.” 

Take a look at Dopey's depiction on film and Doc's speech:

In today's society, people with dwarfism are more and more commonly found in the media. Although Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs thoroughly depicts the seven dwarfs with stereotypical disability images, I do applaud Disney putting characters with dwarfism on the silver screen. In the 1930s, people with dwarfism were only depicted in freak-show like atmospheres, here, Disney exposed children to different types of people. Currently there have been many strides in media exposure of dwarfism. For example, in children's films, the 2011 release, Gnomeo and Juliet, is a classic telling of Romeo and Juliet but from the dwarf perspective in gnome form. It would have been nicer if the characters did not have to take on the role of inanimate objects like gnomes, but at least there are strides for normalization and awareness. Several television shows like TLC’s The Little Couple or Animal Plant’s Pit Boss follow real life people with dwarfism. These types of shows provided a bit of insight into the lives of these people with dwarfism, the challenges, the "normal" lives and their strive for more media attention.  

Examples of Dwarfism in today's media:

Questions for Your Children:

What comes to mind when you see the seven dwarfs?

Does Dopey remind you of anyone you ?

How would you talk to Doc?

Is there any questions about the seven dwarfs?

I suggest using Disney films as a platform for introducing your children to more and more different types of disabilities whether it is physical, mental or social. 

[r2j2]

Analysis of Quasimodo

"The depiction of the disabled person as “monster” and the criminal characterization both express the varying degrees the notion that disability involves the loss of an essential part of one’s humanity. Depending on the extent of disability, the individual is perceived as more or less subhuman" --Paul Longmore

In Hunchback of Note Dame, Disney’s 1996 film retells the classic Victor Hugo story of a deformed hunchback man living in Paris’ Notre Dame Cathedral. The french word, Quasimodo means half formed-- named because he has a physical disability-- a hunched back and facial features. Both are quite noticeable when first seeing Quasimodo. Growing up alone in the bell tower, Quasimodo was raised by Minister of Justice Judge Claude Frollo  per the instruction of the archdeacon. Frollo was to raise Quasimodo as his own child, but Frollo refuses to accept Quasimodo into his own home leaving him in the cathedral bell tower. Forcing Quasimodo into a life of solitary, Frollo has taught Quasimodo to view himself as a "monster" who no one will love or befriend. Spending most of his life alone, Quasimodo grows up isolation with his only friends stone gargoyles who manifest into creatures in the bell tower. 

Disney depicts Quasimodo as the epitome of disability. Not only does Quasimodo, he is a grown man, but in several scenes he is seen playing with dolls. He even befriends stone gargoyles who I cannot tell are magical or simply the manifestation of Quasimodo's imagination. I enjoyed how Disney portrays the villainous character as Frollo.  Frollo takes pretty evil and in many ways could be labeled as a monster himself. He may be a “normal” looking man, but in his actions and he behaves very much like a monster. Frollo possess the stereotypical attitudes that the disability is ugly and should be shunned. This way, children can view Frollo's attitude as something they should not follow and rather think opposite to.

In the Festival of Fools, Quasimodo is revealed to the public and labeled the King of Fools for having the ugliest face in Paris. This solidifies all the teaching Frollo has put on Quasimodo--- people see nothing but an ugly man, disability is ugly. But by witnessing the harshness Quasimodo feels, children audiences can see how this is wrong, and how the deep effects of the Parisians' action have on poor Quasimodo. Quasimodo is pitiful, reminiscent of Nelson's description of the disability stereotype-- pitiful. Nelson quotes theorist Paul Longmore, "Disabiled people are not characterized as a social minority with civil rights but as victims of a tragic fate," (5). Furthermore, in Sally Chiver’s article she discusses the stigma of difference and disability. Quasimodo has a physical deformity— a hump on his back and facial features. The film deals with a central theme, what is a monster? This tendency to label difference as freakish is evident in the Festival of Fools. 

All in all the Disney ending does paint Quasimodo in a positive light. His relationship with a gypsy woman Esmeralda gives him the sense of love and acceptance, but also children a model person to overlook disability. After the festival, Quasimodo was being tortured for his difference, but Esmeralda come to his aid-- shows him humility. Her care for Quasimodo can be seen in the song "God Help the Outcasts." Esmeralda puts her own life at risk when she shows Quasimodo kindness and acceptance. Esmeralda's character and sacrifice shows children audiences not to judge a book by its cover. Quasimodo is a man and not a monster. This is evident when Quasimodo is the hero. He saves Esmeralda's life by rescuing her from burning from the stake and terminates the obvious villain Frollo. In the end, Quasimodo is the hero. Nelson terms this as "hero struggles" where a person with disability takes on hero like qualities that qualify them as amazing. Nelson also notes how this idea often belittles "ordinary" people with disability. 

Esmeralda's song "God Help the Outcasts" about Quasimodo:

Ending the film on a high note, the concluding scene of the film displays the cheering and happiness of the Parisians after Frollo's defeat. Quasimodo receive the ultimate display of acceptance, a little girl approaches him and touches his face, laughing. I applaud Disney’s decision to show kids physical deformities does not may or define a person. Although Disney does reinforce several disability stereotypes, The Hunchback of Notre Dame does portray disability in a positive light. 

The ending scene of celebration, including the scene with the little girl's acceptance: 

Questions for Your Children:

Would you befriend Quasimodo?

Would you feel comfortable with playing with Quasimodo and your toys?

Did you like Esmeralda?

How do you feel about Esmeralda helping Quasimodo?

I suggest using Disney films as a platform for introducing your children to more and more different types of disabilities whether it is physical, mental or social. 

[r2j2]

Analysis of Mama Odie

Disney’s most recent animated film The Princess and the Frog (2009) depicts disability in a stereotypical manner. Similar to Dumbo, the film features a blind voodoo priestess Mama Odie.  The film itself follows the adventure of Tiana and Prince Naveen’s struggle to re-transform into humans again. The two have been morphed into frogs by a evil voodoo magician. Mama Odie’s character is pivotal in the couple finding their way back to human form. I would like to suggest, Disney has again reprised the idea of the supercrip. 

Mama Odie is a seer, which in mythology suggests is a blind person who can see into the future. This is a superpower. As Jack Nelson suggests the supercrip “deal[s] with a heartwarming struggle of someone likeable facing the trauma of a disability, who through great courage, stamina, and determination either succeeds in triumphing or succumbs heroically.”  Mama Odie has embraced his disability person and with magical help can in fact see more than anyone could imagine. She not only has her disability on her side, but because of her 200 plus years life experience and high stature in the Louisiana community, is known to be full of wisdom. This magical old woman reminds me of Pocahontas's character Grandmother Willow.Time and time again, Disney depicts the old woman as majestic. With wisdom and underlying super powers, these woman are who the protagonists of each film must gather advice from. Its interesting that Grandmother Willow is a tree-- reminding me of the man in Indonesia who has epidermodysplasia verruciformis, commonly identified as the tree disease. 

Mama Odie also serves the role of a fairy god mother. She does not give Tiana and Naveen their desired information easily, but rather can see into their hearts (with her powers as a seer). She keeps in mind the motives behind Tiana and Prince Naveen's desire to be re-transformed into human form. Mama Odie is very knowledgeable and magical. She knows where demons come from, and was must be done for the two to be successful. I very much enjoy Disney’s depiction of Mama Odie. She reminds me of a wise grandmother. I can’t help to wonder would she have the same personality and creditability as a non-blind person. Nelson talks about how a lot of “ordinary” disabled people are made to feel like failure if not have accomplished something extraordinary. I question whether or not Mama Odie reinforces this idea and has effect viewers similarly. What do you think readers? Do you relate to Mama Odie? 

  Questions for Your Children:

Would you listen to Mama Odie's advice? Why or why not?

How would you ask for Mama Odie's help?

Does Mama Odie seem trustworthy?

How do you think Mama Odie sees the future?

I suggest using Disney films as a platform for introducing your children to more and more different types of disabilities whether it is physical, mental or social. 

[r2j2]

Advertisement Campaign- Proposed Ad Ideas

We propose reframing the current imagery associated with children's animated film in a new light, and applaud all positive representations of disability. We plan on spinning the tagline "happiest place on earth" and the idea of the fairytale and reframing it to fit advocating disability equality and representation. Our ad campaign will include bold images of animated characters that include but are not limited to the the Little Mermaid, Mama Odie, Shrek, Quasimodo, etc. We want to convey the notion that a fairytale comes in all sorts of shapes, sizes, faces, etc. The variations should include all possible disabilities we discuss on our blog, and will include a link to the blog itself. 

[r2j2]

The Transforming Figure of "The Beast"

The Beast character in Disney’s Beauty and the Beast is often overlooked as a character with a disability. We often associate physical disabilities with the inability to perform basic motor functions essential to daily life. In the film, the Beast does not exemplify any lack of physical ability. In fact, he seems to possess supernatural strength which can be taken as an enhanced ability. Sure, we perceive him as an atrocious looking fellow with poor etiquette, but hardly as someone with a disability. When we delve a little deeper into the film's imagery and symbols though, we discover that the Beast is in fact a disabled character and Disney uses this fact to highlight its story of both external and internal transformation. 

The closest “disability” the Beast exemplifies is that of physical deformity. While not a disability that creates physical hardships, physical deformity, especially disfigurement of the face, does provoke public scrutiny and is accompanied by social limitations. The disability involved is not a lack of a necessary function, but the lack of socially acceptable appearance. This discourse brings to mind an episode of The Twilight Zone called "Eye of the Beholder" that touches upon the desire to "fit in" and the social acceptance of image.

There are real life examples of the Beast character. The Elephant Man of the 19th century, although set within the freak show context (infamous for its exploitation of disabilities), is a perfect example of an individual solely viewed as a spectacle and contrived as socially inept by societal standards. Likewise, the Beast is portrayed as a brute with a personality that matches his appearance. As a result, this physical abnormality is seen as a trait that is displeasing to the audience and something that needs to be changed. 

Here is a quote from Why I Burned My Book and Other Essays on Disability by Paul K. Longmore that I thought was appropriate in describing how Disney was portraying the Beast.

Disability has often been used as a melodramatic device not only in popular entertainments, but in literature as well. Among the most persistent is the association of disability with malevolence. Deformity of body symbolizes deformity of soul (Longmore 133).

In the film, Disney employs the physical disfigurement of the Beast as an outward representation that parallels his internal struggles. The message that comes across to viewers and is especially impressionable is that physical "beast-like" characteristics and "ugliness" are associated with bad behavior and a bad personality. Most notably, the fact that the film emphasizes the transformation of the Beast as a necessity hints at the idea that deformities are unnatural and ought to be changed. 

[r2j2]

Advertisement Campaign - Target Demographic and Implementation

Target Demographic

As mainstream animated films are generally geared toward children, our target audience will be parents with children fitting the age range of 5-18 years old. This is the most prominent and influential stages among children, so our advertising campaign would be directed towards parents who wish to educate their children on important issues such as disability in the media. 

Implementation

Print, Television, and digital media campaigns in various media outlets all across the country. We propose a print/advertisement campaign in prominent parenting magazines, billboard campaign, and info booths in playgrounds or other places where families might be present (e.g. stores, theaters, amusement parks, etc.). We would also like to integrate social media into bringing awareness for this campaign, such as Facebook and Twiiter that will monitor interest levels of consumers. 

[r2j2]

Analysis of Finding Nemo

Characters - Nemo, Dory, and Gil : Victims turned into Symbols of Empowement

Disney's 2003 smash hit "Finding Nemo" introduced audiences to a new whole new perspective of disability not previously covered by animated films before. This film is mainly about a young clownfish named Nemo, whose mother and siblings were killed from birth due to an eel attack. His father, Merlin has been protective,  overbearing, and critical ever since, preventing him from exploring the outside world due to his disability (in this case, a 'gimp' or tiny fin). Despite his physical limitations, Nemo is determined to explore the reef and meet new people, all to his father's dismay. His defiance and willingness to step out of his father's comfort zone results in Nemo's abduction from the reef, leading to an entertaining and heart-warming adventure of his journey home. 

In the beginning, viewers are drawn into the film because of Nemo's tragic story, in which he is a victim that should be pitied. As the movie progresses, however, the focus is less about his disability and more about his ability to interact and thrive in a community despite the physical limitations he faces. 

Several instances in the film indicate highlight Nemo's disability in more subtle and accessible manner. For one thing, the fact that Nemo is a kid makes him more relatable to the film's target audience His gusto and bravery gives audiences a multi-faceted perspective of the character that extends beyond his disability. For example, Nemo and his father view his defect as his "lucky fin," a unique characteristic as opposed to a shameful impairment. The fact that he is eager to interact with others and explore his surroundings somewhat nullifies stereotypes we traditionally associate with the disabled. Though he starts out as the victim, Nemo becomes a symbol of empowerment for viewers. Other characters with disabilities in the film, such as Dory and Gil, are also portrayed in a positive light rather than victimized. For example, Dory's pleasing and cheerful countenance (despite her memory loss) enables her to make friends throughout the film,  and allow Merlin to find their way towards Nemo. Gil's scar and pragmatic personality also gives us another perspective of a disabled character, one who is strengthened by their disability instead of infantilized or treated as objects of pity. 

Conclusion: This film takes a modern approach and perspective to disability, in which it is prominently displayed (particularly in the film's choice of a main character) but in a positive, more empowering manner. Audiences are drawn in by the fact that Nemo becomes a hero in his own right, succeeding against all odds and essentially escaping the victimized stereotype. Nemo is endearing to audiences not merely for his disability but because he made it a part of who he was. He did not ignore it or expect pity - in fact, he was determined to be treated like everyone else. As such, Nemo serves as a positive example of disability in film, particularly in the sense that he is not portrayed as a victimized subject but one who is determined to succeed. 

Examples of "Finding Nemo"  products in mainstream society: