What makes a monster and what makes a man? enabling difference in disney's beauty and the beast and the hunchback of Notre Dame
With the portrayal of Beast and Quasimodo in a beastly form, Disney seems to be perpetuating an appreciation and acceptance for different bodies advocating, “not to be deceived by appearances, for beauty is found within.” (Beauty and The Beast) However, on closer readings of both films, it seems tha...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Final Year Project |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10356/61601 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | With the portrayal of Beast and Quasimodo in a beastly form, Disney seems to be perpetuating an appreciation and acceptance for different bodies advocating, “not to be deceived by appearances, for beauty is found within.” (Beauty and The Beast) However, on closer readings of both films, it seems that their beastly appearances present itself as a conflict, the Monster/Man paradox, that they have to overcome in order to transform their ‘fragmented selves’ and attain a “wholeness of self” (Swan 350). While Swan uses the elements of Gothic romance to support her claim, I propose, using the critical framework of Disability Theory, that not only is this “wholeness is in fact a hallucination” (Davis 2403), but this supposed “wholeness” leaves the characters of Beast and Quasimodo still, if not more, fragmented. In doing so, I argue that Disney sets up an ethos of appreciating difference by featuring characters like Quasimodo and the Beast, but ultimately rejects this difference in favor of “compulsory able-bodiedness” (McRuer 370). As such, Disney’s portrayal of such characters, albeit different in appearance, only serves to strengthen the image of a “normal ideal” (Davis 2398) body. |
|---|