Disney keeps using science as a substitute for young female personality

[Solfa]

https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2019/4/1/18287433/dumbo-disney-female-characters-science-stem?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

 

Last year’s The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is mostly cinematic cotton candy, but it’s been stuck in my craw ever since I saw it. Despite not being a remake of, or a sequel to, any Disney movie I’d seen before, it gave me a powerful sense of déjà vu.

 

Recently, it dawned on me why: The Nutcracker and 2017’s live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast each denote a progressive and feminist sensibility by outfitting their heroine in pants, and giving her exactly one personality trait: a fondness for science.

 

I have no problem with Disney pivoting all of its live-action heroines to being science nerds. But the devil is in the details: Along the characters’ actual journeys, there’s no subtlety to the way these traits are integrated, or any use when it comes to their place in the story.

 

In both movies, the leads demonstrate their love for science in facile ways, bluntly stating their interest or tinkering (to debatable effect) with some curio that would fit more comfortably on the floor of a steampunk convention. The use for their scientific pursuit is limited to scenarios engineered for them, rather than being a meaningful contribution. For instance, Belle comes up with a washing machine prototype at the beginning of Beauty and the Beast that never crops up again. Otherwise, the scientific method is largely forgotten.

 

Tim Burton’s new take on Dumbo cements this penchant for STEM topics as a trend, as that single trait once again defines its lead, Milly Farrier (Nico Parker). Repeatedly, she tells people about her love of science. She owns a chemistry set (that she never uses) and does a little animal training — the latter of which she constantly refers to as employing “the scientific method†or “the rules of science,†despite it bearing no discernible connection to the field.

 

There’s no question that these characteristics are well-intentioned, but there’s a chasm between good intentions and affecting results. Science amounts to little more than a costume for Clara, Belle, and Milly. Their single interest doesn’t inform their growth. Instead, all three movies default to the same broad thematic arc about not doubting oneself. And yet, the lead’s interest in science is made to be such a big deal early in each story that the degree to which they ultimately don’t factor into the conclusion is jarring.

 

At its worst, science feels almost like a last-minute character addition. The script for Dumbo tells us that Milly loves science, but has to twist itself into pretzels to hide the fact that her ultimate purpose isn’t to be unique, but to facilitate Dumbo’s flight — which doesn’t require scientific inquiry at all. If anything, the film could have made Dumbo’s gift and Milly’s scientific mind a source of friction. No such luck.

 

I reserve some hope for future female leads with a knack for science. The Disney movies that don’t fall short in this respect are those in which that love is naturally integrated and engaged with, rather than used as a prop — but also, granted, they’re adapted from non-Disney source material. A Wrinkle in Time and Black Panther both feature young women with an interest in science and technology: Meg Murry (Storm Reid) and Shuri (Letitia Wright). Their passions make a dramatic impact on the problems they face.

 

Meg’s parents are scientists, and she quite literally has to follow in her father’s footsteps in order to find him. Shuri’s interest in and talent for tech is just as much personal as it is part and parcel with her responsibilities as a princess. In Black Panther’s big car chase sequence, she’s operating the vehicle remotely, working in real time to keep the tech (and the car) from crashing.

 

By contrast, Disney uses book smarts and curiosity as a substitute for female independence in the same way that proficiency in martial arts or a leather jacket once signaled that female characters were “tough†and “cool.†They’re visual signifiers or traits not traditionally considered “girly,†but they’re also only surface-level indicators. Milly cites Marie Curie as a role model multiple times, but there’s no explanation of who she was or why she’s so significant to Milly as a scientific hero, beyond a diorama in which Curie is the only woman in a room full of men. The movie is taking advantage of the way the field of science was historically considered unsuitable for women as shorthand for how its young heroine is going against the grain, but places no emphasis on the actual work women did.

 

Changing a character in thoughtful and rewarding ways isn’t impossible, but it can’t be done for the sake of lip service. Cinderella and Maleficent, for instance, both revisited and revitalized well-known characters by fleshing out the extant material (and an entire backstory, in the latter case) instead of “updating†these characters in a way that, ironically, comes across as directly contradictory to the “you are enough†message that these films are meant to send.

 

Broadly speaking, the big thing these young women learn is that they’re more than good enough just as they are. Their shiny new interests suggest that someone thought otherwise, but ultimately just prove the point: To paraphrase Annie Lennox and Aretha Franklin, sisters have to do it for themselves, not to keep up appearances with others.

 

______

Your thoughts?

 

This is something I had noticed with recent Disney movies and it always bothered me, though this article helped me put it in words. There is nothing inherently wrong with an interest in science, but Disney is doing it wrong and it stands out when they do. It’s trying to fix the widespread problem of badly-written female characters, by not tackling the “badly-written†part, but the “female†part, by giving their female character interests in more male-dominated subjects like STEM fields. That really rubs me the wrong way.

[Aletheia]

I don't know about the others, but Belle's father is an inventor so it's not implausible that Belle would pick up some of it on her own, especially since her father raised her by himself. I can imagine she spent a lot of time helping him tinker with his designs. 

Just look at how easily she finds the tool her dad asks for in this scene:

 

[Solfa]

I don't know about the others, but Belle's father is an inventor so it's not implausible that Belle would pick up some of it on her own, especially since her father raised her by himself. I can imagine she spent a lot of time helping him tinker with his designs. 

Just look at how easily she finds the tool her dad asks for in this scene:

 

 

It’s plausible, but it needs to fit in the story. Belle being a tinker doesn’t fit, it never comes up again in the story. It does come up for Maurice because he both disappears at first going to the fair, which leads to Belle leaving to find him, and later one of his inventions is used during the climax to save both Belle and her father.

 

Belle being an outcast because of her love for books does, because the Beast later gifts her an entire library, which implies he is giving her a place to belong, something she sang a song about in the begining. That is the place she wanted to escape to from the provincial life, that’s the “more†she wanted. She can have so many adventures now because there are so many books to read, so many worlds to explore. It also sets up her dynamic with Gaston, why she doesn’t want to marry him when evey other girl in her village wants to. She escapes via reading, but Gaston doesn’t get this, marriage to him will keep her locked forever. He is keeping her away from where she wants to be because of his own criterias (she is beautiful, he is beautiful, they must marry).

 

Belle is a well-written character originally. When they added that tinkering bit, they tried to fix what it wasn’t broken, and thus completely missed the point of her character. The story is not about what skills she has, it’s about what she wants. It’s poignant she gave up herself to Beast in place of her father, because it was just estabilished being locked is what she hated/feared the most. This moment estabilishes something else, that her love for her father is bigger than what she wants or fears for herself, and that plays a role later too. The Beast gave her everything she wanted, but she still wanted to return because she missed him. And then the third act begins.

[abra]

I haven't seen the movies in question, but it does seem very reductive. On the other hand, isn't that the case with most/all Disney leads? I can't remember any complex characters.

 

I did watch Captain Marvel, which is under Disney now, and their take on the main character was great. Not sure if we can credit Disney with that though.

[WheeTaeLover]

I HIGHLY, HIGHLY advocate (enthusiastically support) for females (whether you identify as one in terms of gender or biologically born as one) in STEM fields (as a biological female/non-binary (genderqueer) double majoring in Computer Science and Mathematics with aspirations in Data Science and a Neural Networks enthusiast and Mathematics geek) and I'm glad Disney is attempting to create empowering fictional female role models to empower a part of their targeting audience, but to have your characters be STEM geeks, the STEM part of the story HAS to tie in with the plot of the movie or show that the character is featured on (like how is the STEM interest influence the driving force of the plot: ex. Shuri from Black Panther being a scientist/inventor to help her brother with his job as The Black Panther (the clothes, weapons, etc.)-she is one of the driving forces why T'Chaka is successful as his job as The Black Panther or Meg Murry from A Wrinkle in Time with her interest in science (specifically physics) which crucially/significantly helps her in her journey in searching for her father (the knowledge of quantum physics for instance) with science as the driving force or one of the driving forces of the plot) or else the STEM interest characteristic will just be pretentious and an unnecessary/try-hard tag of the character possessing that characteristic as just a show-off. So therefore, it's awesome to have females with an enthusiastic interest in any STEM field, but you just have to make sure that STEM interest is a crucial part of the plot of the movie or show that character is featured in. 

[Solfa]

I haven't seen the movies in question, but it does seem very reductive. On the other hand, isn't that the case with most/all Disney leads? I can't remember any complex characters.

 

I did watch Captain Marvel, which is under Disney now, and their take on the main character was great. Not sure if we can credit Disney with that though.

I’d say Nani and Lilo are complex characters. Nani is pretty much a kid herself and alone, but she has to now become a mother to Lilo because they don’t have their parents anymore. She clearly loves Lilo, but she doesn’t know how to help her, and she does her best, but the social workers are always knocking af the door doubting her, and rightfully so. Lilo always tries to change things for the better, but her attempts are disastrous because she has no guidance, Nani is often gone to work so they can both survive. And without guidance, she grows differently from her peers too, becoming more an outcast no matter how much she tries to join them. This adds to her already estabilished grief and loneliness coming from losing her family.

[urhandsrnaughty]

Movies are 2 hours long, they have no time to flesh out each and every traits and interests of these characters unless they're central to the story.

 

It's like that in real life too. Me, for example, I genuinely like Psychology, but you can know me for years and have no clue about it because it is irrelevant to what I do, and it isn't something that comes up on everyday conversations.

[lemonete]

Movies are 2 hours long, they have no time to flesh out each and every traits and interests of these characters unless they're central to the story.

 

It's like that in real life too. Me, for example, I genuinely like Psychology, but you can know me for years and have no clue about it because it is irrelevant to what I do, and it isn't something that comes up on everyday conversations.

Precisely though, movies are two hours long so why bother adding those unnecessary details that barely serve the story ? The point is that if the representation of women in traditionally male dominated activities, and more generally the fleshing out of layered, interesting female characters, is actually important to the writers, they should make them part of what drives the story.

They shouldn't get a cookie just for lazily checking a list of generic characteristics.

[urhandsrnaughty]

Precisely though, movies are two hours long so why bother adding those unnecessary details that barely serve the story ? The point is that if the representation of women in traditionally male dominated activities, and more generally the fleshing out of layered, interesting female characters, is actually important to the writers, they should make them part of what drives the story.

They shouldn't get a cookie just for lazily checking a list of generic characteristics.

 

It's just to give the character some description? It used to be Alice likes to bake, now it's Alice likes science. No one complained about movies not fleshing out Alice's reasons for liking baking, so why are people complaining about it now, just because they changed baking to science? These tiny details just add life to the characters. The same way Rapunzel likes painting in Tangled, they do it to paint a picture as to who these characters are. Just because Rapunzel likes to paint doesn't mean her passion for painting should drive the story.

 

You're talking about fleshing out female characters yet you want one character trait (liking science in this case) to be such a defining one that it would even shape how the story progresses. Why should these characters' journeys revolve around science just because they happen to like it? That seems far from being multi-layered to me.

[lemonete]

It's just to give the character some description? It used to be Alice likes to bake, now it's Alice likes science. No one complained about movies not fleshing out Alice's reasons for liking baking, so why are people complaining about it now, just because they changed baking to science? These tiny details just add life to the characters. The same way Rapunzel likes painting in Tangled, they do it to paint a picture as to who these characters are. Just because Rapunzel likes to paint doesn't mean her passion for painting should drive the story.

 

You're talking about fleshing out female characters yet you want one character trait (liking science in this case) to be such a defining one that it would even shape how the story progresses. Why should these characters' journeys revolve around science just because they happen to like it? That seems far from being multi-layered to me.

Well in the example of Tangled, for instance, while her passion for painting isn't necessarily a driver in the story, it DOES play a part. She literally realizes what her real identity is by looking at her paintings on the ceiling. That's good story telling connecting the dots.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying their interest in science should ALWAYS be a driver and that they should be reduced to that aspect. What I'm saying is that, as the article worded very well, those are details thrown into the mix to say they've tried without actually trying. As they point out, the illustrations of their so called interest/passion are superficial at best, just to say "look how progressive we are". That's not what makes a character multidimensional, and it's glaringly obvious in short formats like movies where good writing pushes you to streamline elements and keep the essentials only to drive your story.

 

In the end, it's all about good writing VS sloppy, lazy writing.

[S.u.n.s.h.i.n.e]

As a researcher, I do appreciate Disney for giving the opportunity to showcase to other girls that there's no problem in being interested in science, taking that this is a field with predominant males compared to females. (and with A LOT of prejudice against women and their achievements). However, many times the science and interest for it don't come up genuinely and it seems that it's tossed around just to give them an edge. If you ever worked in the research field or in the science field, you know that it'll eventually become a driver of the things you do and how you see things - because you need to be updated about it every day because there're new findings at every moment, every hour.

 

Anyway my point is: they say they're fond of science but don't use science effectively to give the plot more depth and connect to the narrative. It needs to fit the story and not just be there as saying "we care about women in fields that are heavy with man presence".

[Brittany]

Belle being a lover of literature and wisdom is enough of an example compared to tinkering. Lmao if you're a laywoman then you'd learn more about science from books than from tinkering.