10 January, 2021

Shrek and Corpse Bride show that we love those who resemble ourselves






Do we fall in love with people who remind us of ourselves? 

Le jeu de l’amour et du hasard by the French author Marivaux responds to this question with a big 'yes!' The book invites the question: how do animated films, known for their focus on romantic storylines (Tanner et al. 356), tackle this same question, especially considering the unique properties of the animated medium? Such an analysis might give us insight into how animation both reflects and informs real-life narratives on love and distinction – and we might ask ourselves, is this really how we want to utilize animation to explain what love means in relation to someone different from you? 

On the surface, many animated films seem to insinuate that dissimilar characters can fall in love. Whereas dissimilarity might be portrayed through gender, class and race in live-action, dissimilarity is often manifested as ‘fantastical,’ ‘other’ beings in animation -- an anthropomorphized, non-human character who doesn’t exist in the real world and who looks radically different from humans but still comes across as human-like. Although not unique to animation, this type of character is more easily depicted through animation compared to other media. All it takes is a different type of character design that fits within the style of a film that already creates the illusion of life from scratch, as opposed to live action where VFX, costumes, etc. would render the same illusion a little more costly and, potentially, silly. Also, since animation is often geared at children, the choice for animated films to use fairy tale beings to convey a notion of “difference” seems to fall well in line with its playful and imaginative audience. 

Films with fantastical beings who fall in love with humans include The Little Mermaid (1989) with its mermaid and a prince, Thumbelina (1994with its elf and a human, Beauty and the Beast (1991) with its beast and a human, and the list continues. The notion of “happily ever after” in these films indicate that the barrier between fantastical and human is not a hindrance for their relationships. But are these characters truly that different from one another? Importantly, all the above-mentioned films have a magical transformation at the end at which point both characters come to belong to the same category, whether human or fantastical. What meaning can we take away from such transformations? And are there animated films in which love cannot overcome distinction? 

To explore animated human characters and their romantic relation with “fantastical,” “other” characters, this article analyzes two animated films, Shrek (2001) and Corpse Bride (2005). I demonstrate that although these two films seemingly treat the theme of distinction and love in different ways, both suggest that love can only blossom between beings who are physically and behaviourally alike. 

Shrek and Corpse Bride storylines

Shrek begins when the main character, Shrek the ogre, reads a fairy-tale which outlines the story of a princess and her Prince Charming. Shrek concludes that it is stupid and goes outside to take a mud bath. The writer Kristian Moen notes that in a matter of minutes, Shrek presents itself as a film in which “a certain idea of the old-fashioned and sentimental fairy tale becomes the subject of parody and ridicule” (211). In line with this remark, the conflict of the film manifests itself when Lord Farquaard regroups all fairy-tale creatures and exiles them from his kingdom and into Shrek’s swamp. To reclaim his swamp, Shrek accepts to save Princess Fiona from a dragon and bring her back to Lord Farquaard who wishes to marry her. Shrek embarks on the voyage with a donkey who knows how to speak, named Donkey. When they have saved Fiona, Shrek slowly realizes that the more he gets to know her, the more he falls in love with her. At the end of the film, Fiona becomes an ogre and they live “happily ever after” (until the sequel). 

Corpse Bride is a stop-motion animated film created by Tim Burton. The critic Steven Allen writes that the story is based on a Russian fairy-tale and that the goal of the film is to disturb the spectator (88). Thus, we see a human character, Victor, who accidentally marries a dead woman while practicing his wedding vows for his fiancée, Victoria, in a forest. He places the ring on the branch of a tree, which we discover is the hand of the “corpse bride,” Emily. He learns that while Emily lived, she ran away with a man who later tricked and murdered her. Since then, she has been waiting for a man to come and fulfil her desire to experience true love. Victor has empathy for Emily but maintains that he loves Victoria. Unlike in Shrek where Fiona and Shrek end up together, Victor does not fall in love with Emily. 

The fantastical as a barrier of distinction: Shrek

In the beginning of the film, Shrek uses the fantastical as a tool to create a barrier of distinction between Shrek and Fiona. In an obvious way, this manifests itself in the different physical characteristics of the characters. Shrek is an ogre who is big and has green skin. In contrast, Fiona is human. 



Their differences also play out in their behaviour. Shrek displays the manners we might typically associate with an ogre. He is an anti-hero who terrifies humans because he can battle the strongest of humans and win. As a result, humans treat him like a monster. Shrek explains that this is the lot of ogres: “I am an ogre. You know, ‘grab your torch and pitchforks’” (9.51).  It is not far-fetched to conclude that he is considered the lowest of the lowest of society. However, Shrek does not care about the opinions of others – he does what he wants. As Donkey remarks, Shrek is the type who says, “I don’t care what nobody thinks of me” (10.17). For example, he farts, burbs and has decided to live alone in a swamp. In addition, he finds rats, living snails, earwax, and eyeballs to be delicious snacks for dinner. These manners indicate that he is no Prince Charming. 

Contrary to that, Princess Fiona is a princess awaiting her Prince Charming. She cares a lot about what others think of her. When she learns that Shrek has come to save her from the dragon, she lies down on her bed, fixes some folds in her dress, grabs a flower bouquet and pretends to be asleep – like a real princess waiting for her prince and putting on a show for him. When she walks, it is like she dances delicately and she loves to sing sweet melodies. To summarize, she is seemingly the antithesis to an ogre. 

We see that this distinction creates a distance between the two immediately following Fiona’s rescue from the dragon. In this scene, Fiona doesn’t know that Shrek is an ogre—he wears a knight’s armour that covers his face. She believes that Shrek is her “big love” and she tells him that he has to kiss the princess after saving her. Shrek and Donkey make fun of this suggestion and Shrek proclaims, “well, let’s just say I’m not your type, okay?” (0.42.40). In this way, Shrek and Donkey crush the possibility that an ogre and a human could fall in love. Fiona confirms the impossibility of their union when she discovers that he is an ogre a few moments later. She is confused and doesn’t know what to say, except for “this is all wrong” (0.43.16). The fantastical distinction between the two thus signifies for these characters that they are different and that they cannot belong together. 

Not only are Fiona and Shrek different from each other—their personalities seem to outright clash and annoy each other. When they first meet, Fiona gives Shrek her handkerchief “as a token of my gratitude” (0.37.10) and in response, Shrek says “thank you,” uses it to clean his face, and gives it back to her covered in dirt. Needless to say, Fiona is not happy. Shrek does not catch that she is courting him in the royal and romantic tradition and just offended her. After Fiona discovers that Shrek is not human, she stops flirting with him, refuses to really hang out with Donkey and Shrek, and keeps saying that she wants a real gentleman. Every time Fiona then talks about love or the idea of a Prince Charming, Shrek gets bored and interrupts her. He affirms his “ogreness” by farting or making fun of Fiona’s royal habits. These gestures highlight what Shrek perfectly summarizes: “She’s a princess and I’m--… an ogre” (1.00.59). In this part of the film, their differences mean that they have no common ground, no reason to fall in love. 

The fantastical as a barrier of distinction: Corpse Bride

Corpse Bride also establishes that the two main characters are different because of a fantastical barrier. Like Shrek, Victor and Emily have different physical characteristics that highlight their fictive differences. Victor is a living human, while Emily is dead. The body of Emily is half skeleton, half blue skin. 



The film accentuates this distinction between living beings and the dead when Emily brings Victor to the underworld. Victor does not feel at ease and continually repeats that he does not belong in this world with Emily. As he tells her, « there’s been a mistake ! I’m not dead ! » (0.26.48). He proclaims that he is different from Emily because he is a living being and explains that for this reason, they cannot get married. Emily doesn’t want to listen to Victor’s reasoning– she doesn’t think it is so bad that there be a distinction between the two. But even though she says this, the film gives Emily lines which show that she is different from Victor. For example, she remarks that the underworld, « takes my breath away ! Well, it would if I had any ! » (0.27.41). These words remind the audience that she is dead and, per definition, different from living beings. Also, her first thought when Victor suggests that she should meet his parents shows that her experience does not match Victor’s: « meet your parents ! What a fantastic idea ! Where are they buried ? » (0.30.04). Victor has to tell her that they are still alive and this realization has an effect on Emily. Even though she knows Victor is human, it is not until this moment that she begins to acknowledge that, maybe, Victor is too different from her. When they meet another skeleton, her worries are confirmed. He tells them that it is not “natural” that the world of the living should interact with the world of the dead (0.31.41). Thus, the film highlights the improbability of their union. 

Like Shrek, distinction also manifests itself in the personalities of Victor and Emily. Victor is very discrete whereas Emily is full of energy. The film accentuates this ironic contrast in its construction of the world of humans and dead. The world of living beings has soft, almost monochromatic colors and lighting. The people are morbid and without joy. For example, at a party organized by Victoria’s parents, no one utters a word. All the guests are old and one man has fallen asleep. In contrast, the world of the dead has all the colors of the palette. Their parties are big and everyone seem to be amused. What’s more, the dead have all ages, from small babies to old skeletons. In this way, Burton constructs the world of the dead as more vibrant than the world of the living. In line with this, when Victor plays the piano in the beginning of the film, Victoria tells him that she cannot play the piano because it is an artform that is « too passionate » (0.09.30). Unlike Victoria, Emily plays the piano without scruples and with emotion. Victor feels more at ease in the world of the living where people are more reserved. He doesn’t know how to act around Emily who has an animated spirit. 

In contrast to Emily, Victoria resembles Victor. Even though she belongs to a higher class than Victor and her parents only wants to see them married because Victor comes from a rich Bourgeois family, they have a lot in common. Victor is a tranquil and shy man. He walks cautiously and when his parents tell him to do something, he does as told, even if their demands hurt his self-esteem. For example, when Victor and his parents approach Victoria’s house to meet her for the first time, he shares that he does not feel well because he has never met Victoria. His mother responds, « well at least we have that in our favor » (05.42). Victor simply accepts this remark, even if it is an insult that indicates he is a social disaster. Victoria acts in the same way. She looks at the ground when spoken to, follows the wishes of her parents, and speaks in a soft voice. Finally, whether by coincidence or not, their names are almost the same which really highlights the extent to which Victor and Victoria are alike. 

We fall in love with those who resemble ourselves

As Shrek progresses, the film gives the impression that Fiona and Shrek can fall in love, despite their differences. When she must go to the castle where Lord Farquaard lives, Fiona makes up an excuse in order to spend one more night with Shrek and Donkey. During their voyage, she has found a connection with Shrek and as Donkey remarks, they like each other (1.00.16). It is not their differences that make Shrek fall in love with Fiona, though. Shrek’s lines indicate that he loves Fiona despite the fact that she is human (not because of it). For example, he says that he likes Fiona even though she is pretty and thus not ugly like an ogre, which he would prefer (1.04.16). In fact, Shrek does not begin to love Fiona until she starts acting like an ogre, which puts into question whether they have fallen in love with someone different from themselves. On the second day of their travel, Fiona burbs, fights a gang of men, and traps some flies with a spiderweb, like cotton candy, for Shrek to eat. Donkey remarks that she is “as nasty as [Shrek]” (51.43). She stops acting like a princess and this intrigues Shrek. He admits that she is not “exactly what I expected” (51.47). It seems that Shrek falls in love with the characteristics of Fiona that resemble himself. 

Fiona also falls in love with someone who resembles herself. Shrek does not know this but Fiona is an ogre at night. She was subject to a spell which cannot be broken but with a true love’s kiss. This is the reason why she acts like Shrek. She is not the typical princess (or human for that matter). When Donkey discovers this, he tells her that she can choose Shrek over Lord Farquaard now because “you know, um, you’re kind of an ogre and Shrek—well, you got a lot in common.” (1.04.16). By saying this, Donkey seems to think that the big differences between Fiona and Shrek are no longer relevant. Now they have a lot “in common.” By the end of the film, Shrek kisses Fiona and she becomes an ogre for good. No longer human, and in fact part ogre the whole time, Fiona belongs to the same fantastical group as Shrek. In this way, the film shows that an ogre and a human cannot work out, but an ogre and an ogre—that’ll work!



In contrast, Victor in Corpse Bride is not a fantastical character in secret, nor is Emily secretly alive. He remains a living being and Emily remains dead. There is also no transformation at the end to convert one of them into the same fantastical/human category as the other. The movie suggests that the love between two characters who come from different worlds (and who remain settled in that world), one fantastical and one human, cannot flourish. Throughout the film, Victor is horrified by the notion that he is married to Emily. He tells her outright: “I’m sorry, but this just can’t work… We’re just too different! I mean, you’re dead!” (0.39.07). He thinks that the distinction between living and dead is too great for love to develop between the two. When he accepts to stay with her in the Underworld, it is only because he learns that Victoria has married someone else and because he pities Emily. The critic Allen remarks that in this way, Victor follows logic instead of his feelings (102). 

The film highlights the notion that Victor will try to love Emily in vain by using the symbolism of a butterfly. The first scene of the film shows Victor in the midst of drawing a butterfly trapped inside a glass. After finishing the drawing, he lets it go. The very last shot of the film then shows Emily dissolving into a cascade of butterflies that fly up into the sky, after she and Victor have separated and she decides to find eternal peace. Drawing back to the introduction of the butterfly in the beginning of the film, it can be concluded that if she had stayed with Victor, she would not have achieved this freedom but would have remained the butterfly trapped inside a glass who Victor desperately tries to pin down to understand. This prolepsis signals that it was inevitable that their relation should not work out and that Victor was there to help Emily get out of her trauma and move on. In this way, the film shows that it is best if the distinction between fantastical and human remains intact. Their differences condemn their connection from the get-go. 

The value of embracing difference

The only time the film insinuates that, maybe, Victor could fall in love with Emily happens when they connect over their similarities. The scene, named “The Piano Duet,” shows Emily playing piano. She is melancholic because she knows that Victor does not love her. She resembles the people from the living world and does not embody her usual happy mood. She plays the same tune that Victor plays at the beginning of the film, which could signify a bond between the two. Victor is intrigued, sits down next to her, and begins playing a duet with her. Slowly, Emily’s happy character returns and the two play with passion. In this way, they get closer to each other because of their shared interest in music. By the end of the piece, the hand of Emily separates itself from her body and continues playing its own tune. It even runs up all along the arm of Victor. This act highlights, once again, that she is dead. This return to reality could scare Victor and could have put an end to their moment together. But, this time, Emily’s status as ‘dead’ does not bother Victor. When Emily says, “pardon my enthusiasm,” Victor simply responds, “I like your enthusiasm” (0.51.59). Here, Victor accepts Emily as dead—he accepts that she is more passionate than he is, instead of seeing the distinction between them as a fault. He even begins to play the piano as passionately as she does, which could highlight that he learns from her and her different approach to life. Thus, this short but important scene suggests that the love between Victor and Emily could develop and conquer distinction if they were to concentrate on their similarities while, at the same time, embracing their differences. 



It is possible to conclude that, throughout the film, Emily has represented this mentality. She has loved Victor from the moment she first saw him, despite their differences. It would seem that the notion that people fall in love with those who resemble themselves does not apply to her. However, is Emily’s love for Victor really “love”? Emily says she loves Victor but this love is based on chance. As Allen remarks, she has waited for a man who can replace the love that she was refused by the lover who killed her. This desire is the only reason for her existence in the dead world. Allen says that, “longing for love is the pain of the corpse bride… clearly, any man would do” (101). She uses Victor to reconstruct her lost life. Her love has nothing to do with Victor as a person. In fact, whether he be living or dead, she would have given him her love. She is in love with an image of Victor that only exists in her head and therefore, she is blind to the reality of how different they are. Even if she loves Victor despite their differences, she tries to make it work by ignoring their differences. The end of the film, where the two separate, shows that this type of love cannot win over distinction. It indicates that if you fall in love with someone radically different from you, you have to acknowledge these differences in order to have a long-lasting, truthful relation. 

Conclusion

By the end of the film, Corpse Bride has established that Victor is the most attracted to the being who most resembles himself. Emily accepts that Victor does not belong in her world. She tells him, “this is wrong… I love you, Victor. But you are not mine” (1.07.05). She then encourages him to pick Victoria—a human like himself. Victor is relieved by this suggestion. He prefers Victoria. Even though the film has devoted more time to the relation between Victor and Emily, and even though Victor has spent more time with Emily than Victoria, their differences stop their love from flourishing. Victor falls in love with someone who belongs to his own category (human) and resembles him the most in her behaviour, regardless of how well he actually knows her. 

Shrek and Corpse Bride thus both address the question of love and distinction. Like the storyline of Le jeu de l’amour et du hasard, no character in neither Shrek nor Corpse Bride fall in love with someone because of “difference.” Deliberately or not, the films display people falling in love based on similarity. Importantly, Shrek shows Fiona transforming into an ogre which seems to indicate that an animated couple where one belongs to a fantastical category and the other to a human category must “become” similar in order for the relationship to work. This division of fantastical and human in relation to love, as found in these two films, invites the study of more animated films to see whether this depiction exists across animated films and which, if any, films show distinctly different characters falling in love despite their differences, with no magical transformations in the end. This would be important to find out to establish a well-rounded understanding of our conceptions of love and distinction and how we wish to convey these through the animated medium. 

Works Cited 
Allen, Steven. “Bringing the Dead to Life: Animation and the Horrific.” At the Interface / Probing the Boundaries, vol. 61, 2010, pp. 87-107. 
Moen, Kristian. Film and Fairy Tales: The Birth of Modern Fantasy. I.B. Tauris, 2012. Ebook. 
Tanner, Lisa Renée and Shelley A. Haddock, Toni Schindler Zimmerman, and Lori K. Lund. “Images of Couples and Families in Disney Feature-Length Animated Films.” The American Journal of Family Therapy, vol. 31, 2003, pp. 355-373. 
 
Primary Sources
 Shrek. Directed by Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson, DreamWorks, 2001. 
The Corpse Bride. Directed by Tim Burton and Mike Johnson, Warner Bros. Pictures, 2005.

10 August, 2020

Why Did I Make A Blog?

When you read Le Bourgeois gentilhomme, a French play written in the 17th century by Molière, it is easy to laugh at Monsieur Jourdain, the main character, and ridicule the characters’ desire to distinguish himself. We might conclude that the French court and notions of nobility are ancient concepts. But when I look at my own blog, I see that I fall into many of the same traps as Molière’s character. I see that I want to project an image of myself, just like Jourdain. I made a blog to distinguish myself from others but my real thoughts do not shine through in most of my posts. My blog resembles the characters in Molière’s play because just like them, I focus on appearances, prestige, on the notion of doing what everyone else is doing, and on false optimism.

How to gain prestige?

In Le Bourgeois gentilhomme, Monsieur Jourdain wants others to view him as a “gentilhomme.” He wishes for others to think of him with the highest esteem. To attain this objective, he shows the world that he has good manners and that he is well informed on all matters of importance to the 17th century French court, such as the arts and the latest fashion. We see this desire to appear grand play out in act 1, scene 2, when Monsieur Jourdain has an audience with le Maître de Musique and le Maître à Danser. Le Maître de Musique is in the midst of presenting a song when Monsieur Jourdain says, “Donnez-moi ma robe pour mieux entendre (give me my dress so that I can better listen)” (l. 55). With these words, Monsieur Jourdain reveals that he knows that appearances are everything and that a particular dress could signify power and confidence. At every instance, he asks himself: What do others think of me? And then he does everything in his power to control how he presents himself to others. In doing so, he hopes that others will think well of him.  

In a similar way, I control how others view me on my blog. Like Monsieur Jourdain, I ask myself, “What do others think of me? How can I present myself in the best possible light?” Above all else, I have distinguished myself as a "CalArtian" because CalArts signifies a certain prestige. When I highlight that I am an alum from there, I show my position in the hierarchy of aspiring artists and animators. In one of my most popular posts, “Fallen In Love With CalArts?” I put photos that underline this prestige. There is a photo where I sit outside the A113 classroom and a photo with Glen Keane (and of course, I make sure to mention that Glen Keane is also an alum from CalArts). I also distinguish myself when I mention that the school was founded by Walt Disney and that Tim Burton lived in the same dorm as me. I had a post called “Life at CalArts” where I wrote “[The students] somehow still find time to hang out with each other and enjoy the surrounding area” and I share many photos of CalArts that show just how much fun we have (I have since deleted this post). With all these posts and photos, I want others to think, “Wow, that’s so cool!”

Standing out by doing what others do


On my blog and in Le Bourgeois gentilhomme, there is an obsession with doing what everyone else is doing – with doing what is popular. Monsieur Jourdain seeks distinction by showing his love for what the nobility loves. His behavior is an example of "la triangulation du désir” or “the triangle of desire” by René Girard. According to this theory, you can love something, the object of desire, because this object is loved by people that you esteem highly. We see this tendency clearly throughout the play. For example, when le Maître de Musique says, “Il faut qu’une personne comme vous, qui êtes magnifique et qui avez de l’inclination pour les belles choses, ait un concert de musique chez soi tous les mercredis ou tous les jeudis (it is vital that a person like yourself, who is magnificent and who has a sense for things of beauty, have a musical concert at his home every Wednesday or Thursday),” Monsieur Jourdain simply responds, “Est-ce que les gens de qualité en ont (do ‘quality’ people have such things ?)” (Acte 2, Scène 2, l. 12-16). When he learns that, yes, they do, it is established that having a musical concert would show the good taste of Monsieur Jourdain. Similarly, he wears “les fleurs en enbas” on his new attire because le Maître Tailleur tells him that people ‘of quality’ wear "les fleurs en enbas" (Acte 2, Scène 5, l. 23-32). Even if Monsieur Jourdain thought initially that it was bizarre, he has no scruples wearing this attire if people he esteems wear it. He asks himself, “What do people I look up to do ? Okay, I am going to do that as well.” In his quest for distinction and superiority, he paradoxically tries to act like everyone else around him.


Likewise, I made a blog because I knew that most of my friends from CalArts have one. My class was even known as “the social media class.” In all our classes, our teachers told us that having a presence online, “is really important for your artistic careers. If people do not know you, how will you stand out ? How will your drawing differentiate itself from another person’s good drawing ? Your personality is just as important as your artistic competences.” My blog is an attempt to distinguish myself from my CalArtian friends and other artists. I did it to ‘be known.’ It is a manifestation of me saying, “here I am! Look at what I have done. Please, like me. And give me a lot of page views so that everyone can see I am popular and have a good personality!” I tell myself that I am just doing what everyone else does – so I am not harming anyone. By having a blog, I show that I am willing to do what it takes to be a part of the animation industry. I know that my friends and successful artists have a blog, so I go through the same (somewhat unnatural for an introvert) process. I am prepared do what everyone else does, if that aids my career. Like Monsieur Jourdain, I want to distinguish myself by paradoxically doing what everyone else does.


False optimism


If I am so preoccupied by what everyone think of me, can I really show my true thoughts? Do I show myself on my blog or what I think others want to see? In Le Bourgeois gentilhomme, the characters flatter Monsieur Jourdain to obtain what they want. They do not share what they really think. For example, the artisans have every interest in complimenting Monsieur Jourdain so that he will continue to employ them. Similarly, le comte Dorante says what he knows Monsieur Jourdain wants to hear so that he will continue to give him money. He says to him that he is, “l’Homme du monde que j’estime le plus (the man I esteem the most in the world)" (Acte 3, Scène 4, l. 21-22), even as he makes fun of him behind his back. For example, he pretends in Act 4, Scene 1 that he loves a party thrown by Monsieur Jourdain when, in reality, he looks down on it. He thus wears a mask and hides his true feelings to control how others view him.


On my blog, I often do not share my true thoughts, either. I do not mention that we had no free time at CalArts ; that we were seated in a dark room without windows all day every day ; that certain people were so exhausted by the deadline of our films that they fell asleep on their cintiqs ; that we did not have enough cintiqs for everyone, so it was a fight every morning to ensure one ; that what you learn at CalArts is mostly dependent on studying on your own ; and that CalArts has financial issues. Oh, I also do not mention that the CalArts halls were supposedly constructed as an insane asylum, ensuring that someone would get lost in the hallways and therefore not be able to escape – so you can imagine the beautiful architecture. I do not mention these things because they are ‘negative.’ I do not want to seem like I am complaining. I want CalArts to have no reason to be angry with me. Instead of sharing what I really think, I am overly positive. For example, I use a blog post to encourage you to “try out drawing computer software” because everyone in the animation industry draw on cintiqs now—even when I myself take every opportunity to draw on paper. Likewise, in my post “To CalArts Or Not To CalArts,” I had written “if you want good, nourishing food, the CalArts Cafeteria is not that place,” but I deleted it because I did not want to offend anyone. On my blog, I only mention things that put CalArts in a good light. I distinguish myself as someone who behaves well and does not complain. Like the characters in Bourgeois gentilhomme, I flatter something when in reality, I am not all that positive about the subject.


I made a blog because I wanted to distinguish myself. In a world full of artistic competition, I wanted people to know me and my art. But my blog posts show that in an attempt distinguish oneself, you can easily end up doing what everyone else does. I rarely share my real feelings, that which would really distinguish me from others. Just like Monsieur Jourdain and the other characters for whom appearances are everything in Le Bourgeois gentilhomme, I play a game without questioning why. If I do not share myself on my blog and if I resemble other bloggers, what do I share? What do I add? If my blog does not distinguish me… why did I make a blog?

 

Primary Source

Poquelin, Jean-Baptiste « Molière. » Le Bourgeois gentilhomme. Belin Gallimard, 2015.

 

27 October, 2019

Cinderella’s Harmful Construction Of Kindness




Is anger the opposite of kindness?

In the re-make of Disney’s Cinderella from 2015, the definition of kindness is clear: you must never get angry with others. The film depicts the heroine, Ella, as she controls her anger and remains kind no matter the amount of mistreatment she endures.

As a reward for her diligent kindness, a fairy godmother and a prince come to Ella’s rescue and she soon becomes Queen of the kingdom.

In light of Dr. Kristin Neff’s research on “self-compassion,” this construction of kindness teaches audiences (mainly children) to expect external rewards for ignoring their feelings and remaining passive in painful circumstances.

As Dr. Neff’s definition of kindness shows, sometimes getting angry is the only sustainable way to embody kindness – in no small part because doing so encompasses kindness toward the self.

Defining self-compassion

A scale to measure self-compassion was first created by Dr. Neff in 2003 when she split the concept into three components: mindfulness, common humanity, and self-kindness. Dr. Neff uses the term mindfulness to describe the act of acknowledging and accepting our feelings when we find ourselves in a given painful situation. Without mindfulness, we would not be able to address suffering because we would be ignoring (either consciously or unconsciously) our feelings.

Common humanity refers to accepting that suffering is part of the human experience – it is what allows us to not feel isolated in our pain.

Finally, self-kindness is the wish to alleviate our suffering and do what is necessary to change our situation.



Kindness = putting your own needs second?

Let’s first look at the mindfulness component of self-compassion and how Cinderella’s version of kindness opposes it.

In the film, Ella receives a “golden childhood” from her parents and because of this happy upbringing, she puts aside her own needs to meet those of others. Ella is so full of love from her childhood that she can give it out to others who are incapable of love. Containing her anger is considered “kind.” As her mother tells her, “have courage and be kind.”

While there is nothing wrong with “having courage” and “being kind,” it becomes clear as the film progresses that Ella’s understanding of these concepts keeps her from facing reality.

When Ella’s father marries another woman and she and her step-daughters move in, Ella remembers the words of her mother – bravery means meeting these people with compassion and understanding. Even though her step-mother looks down on her, Ella does not take this to heart. After the death of her father, Ella then becomes the maid of the house and her new step-mother manipulates her into moving up in the attic. She is the recipient of spiteful comments from her new family, who ill-use her and rename her “Cinderella.” Still, Ella is kind toward them and accepts her new role in the house without complaint.

Cinderella pretends everything is OK

As Ella performs all the household chores and endures her new family’s abuse, she only feebly acknowledges that her situation is hard. A talk with a friend, a horse ride in the forest, and a good cry near the well are all important scenes because they show her letting her emotions out in frustration about the unfairness of her situation. In a sense, they are moments that embody Dr. Neff’s concept of mindfulness.

However, for the most part, Ella represses her dissatisfaction with her step-mother’s treatment of her. In one scene, for instance, the family is seated in the dining room while Ella serves breakfast. Ella is about to take her seat when her step-mother asks her to return to the kitchen, stating that “it seems too much to expect you to prepare breakfast, serve it, and still sit with us. Wouldn’t you prefer to eat when all the work is done, Ella? Or should I say Cinderella?


Ella makes a grimace, then bites the sour apple and does as told. The viewer can see the mental work Ella goes through, of first having a natural response and then controlling this emotion in order to execute the step-mother’s order. She doesn’t allow herself to get angry or show her natural response.

In effect, Ella doesn’t address her own suffering, the first component of Dr. Neff’s definition of self-compassion. She pretends everything is fine as it is.

Cinderella passively endures her situation

Since Ella does not acknowledge that her situation is difficult, she cannot take steps to change it.

When her step-mother locks her up in the attic, Ella lets it happen without a fight. Instead of trying to escape, she sits down on the windowsill and sings.

Her understanding of “kindness” prevents her from taking action to alleviate her own pain, the third element of self-compassion. She thinks that putting herself first would be unkind.



Don’t get angry and you shall go to the ball

The moment Ella acknowledges that her situation must change, her Fairy Godmother magically appears. Lucky for Ella, her Fairy Godmother helps her go to a royal ball where Ella meets the prince.

Ella is later saved by this same prince when she is sitting in the attic singing. He helps her out of the grip of the evil stepmother.

In the film, it is therefore not necessary for Ella to take active action on her own side to change her situation. Whenever she needs help, others come to her rescue.

As a result, the film’s message seems all the more strong: be kind toward others, don’t get angry, endure mistreatment, and you will be rewarded by external forces.

The courage to be self-kind

Instead of “having courage” and “being kind” enough to let others have their way, as Ella does, we should celebrate having the courage to be kind toward ourselves. Kindness for the self is a courageous act. The easy thing is to ignore what is happening and letting the status quo run its course.

Looking at Cinderella in this way invites the question -- what would the world look like if children looked up to characters who stand up for themselves and embrace self-compassion?

Would it be a world where children grow up knowing that anger, felt and expressed in a loving way, can be a form of kindness?  







07 September, 2019

TEACH YOURSELF | How To Add Feeling Through Composition

Artistic know-how does not need to be expensive or attained at a school like CalArts. That's why I research free online advice on drawing and encourage my readers to do the same. You can take your education into your own hands.

For this post, I explore the relationship between composition and feeling -- which is, of course, essential to understand for filmmakers. Conveying emotions through visuals is part of what makes filmmaking so exciting and creative!

My hope is that these handouts and videos, which I share below, can inspire students to learn the fundamentals of composition and feeling -- without paying a fortune!

Lines represent feelings

Here is a handout that was shared by Mark Kennedy on his blog Temple of the Seven Golden Camels. These illustrations, originally from the book Creative Illustration, show how different shapes connote different feelings. For instance, horizontals and verticals are calm, whereas diagonals are full of motion and tension.


(Source: sevencamels)


So depending on the mood of the piece you are working on, different lines and how they divide the canvas will aid in conveying that feeling you’re going for.


Brad Bird did a handout on how to add depth to your storyboards/compositions.

Pace and staging characters 

Here is also a video that analyzes the pacing of the camera moves in Brad Bird's movies and how such adds to the story of each film, respectively. Toward the end, there is a brief mentioning of symmetric vs. dynamic filmmaking.






As this video highlights, how you make cuts and stage your characters has a great effect on the ‘feel’ of the movie.

Tony Zhou has made a similar video that explains why Edgar Wright’s filmmaking works so well – namely, because he takes advantage of the film medium and shows visuals that are funny, even without dialogue.






I recommend taking a look at some (or all) of the videos Zhou has posted!


Characters and how they fit into the overall composition likewise connotes a lot about the feeling of a scene. For instance, a character can be visually depicted as taking up a large portion of a shot and we will sense that she or he is more important or powerful than any other given character.

This video, by Zachery Ramos-Tayolor, gives an example from the movie Steve Jobs. It highlights how the characters’ movement indicates who is in power.





Similarly, Mark Kennedy did a blog post that analyzes the movements of characters and how such symbolize the power dynamics within a scene in Paths of Glory.



(Source: sevencamels)


The camera angle can also aid in power dynamics. When I was studying How to Train Your Dragon, I noticed that in scenes when Stoick was imposing, the camera angle was always placed up toward him and down toward Hiccup. This established a power relationship – Stoick seems authoritative, whereas hiccup is small and unsure.













Thanks for reading along! And as always, a thousand thanks to the artists who shared their advice online!

Good luck studying.