This piece of literature seemed like a dissertation regarding the depiction of revolutions, ideas about autonomy and civil rights movements in animated films specifically Pixar. At first, I wasn’t sure what side of the fence the author was on in terms of being for or against revolutions until I realized they were using a lot of sarcasm or writing from the perspective of the movie writers’ portrayals of revolutions and the messages being conveyed by the writers’ regarding revolutions. The author was writing through a Marxist/ economic lens, also a feminist theory and queer lens and finally a structuralist lens breaking down each part of a movie by its symbolism, its language, hidden and subliminal meanings and deconstructing in detail everything in the film. I chose this piece over others because the first one I looked at was too wordy and would require me to stop every minute to research each word in a dictionary which would make the reading experience a bit too overwhelming and harder for me to understand. This one was written in a more understandable context that wasn’t overly pretentious. Maybe I am not very smart, but a wise man Albert Einstein once said, “if you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”. I didn’t feel like spending extra time deciphering a superfluous amount of SAT words while at the same time trying to engage with the content to write a reflection. I need to be able to understand what I’m reading. I didn’t look through all of them, but I liked the topic because me and my daughter watch a lot of people analyze animated movies and their meanings through different lenses some similar to what the author wrote about in “Animated Revolt and Revolting Animation”.

                I have seen a few other people speak about the revolutionary themes in movies like Toy Story, Chicken Run, Monster’s Inc, Finding Nemo and The Bee Movie which the author wrote about all of these. That made it more enjoyable for me to read because I could see the similarities in perspectives but also this author showed me a completely different perspective that I didn’t consider was a main point of these movies. The author states that in these movies they make feminist movements, Marxist revolts and queer lifestyles seem childish, nothing more than fantasy, naïve, unrealistic, utopian and abnormal or against what is “natural”. The author goes into describe how these movies uphold heterosexual norms, patriarchal standards and that capitalism is the “more logical” and “better” structure in comparison to any alternatives. The author called the movies the Pixarvolt genre where these animated films play with themes of more diverse and queer characters, defy gender roles and patriarchal norms, concepts focused on community verses individualism and showing the exploitation of the labor force and how capitalism is not the best and only functional system that humans could or should live under. However, the author makes a point that putting these revolutionary messages in animated films makes these concepts seem like they are only fantasy, out of reach in the “real world” and that these are the ideals of optimistic children and not “logical wise adults who know better” than to take any of these concepts seriously. It almost reduces these ideas of revolution and worlds outside of white heterosexual patriarchal capitalist norms as “child’s play”.

                I never realized that I use all lenses in my writing because I like to be diverse and be able to see things from all perspectives not just one. I often care more about inclusion and don’t want to miss the entire picture or accurate understanding of something without taking all the lenses into account. For example, we can look through a feminist or queer theory lens however without a critical race theory lens, that considers the racial aspect of feminism and homosexuality, it is missing an entire populations perspective and experiences rendering it not truly whole or accurate. A White feminist lens is not the same as a Black feminist lens, same goes for trans, queer and homosexuals, their racial backgrounds make each lens very different which is why I think it’s important to use multiple so not to exclude important pieces of the puzzle and bigger picture. There are a lot of nuances and details that can be missed when only looking through one lens. Also, economic lenses are equally important because class differences and wealth inequality will also play a role in that nuance whether looking through a racial, queer or feminist lens. Obviously wealthy people who are of all races, sexualities and genders will have a vastly different life experience and lens than those who live in poverty or are working paycheck to paycheck. Then comes the psychoanalytical lens that contributes as well for example how queer people, women and Black people tend to have more issues with mental health and trauma compared to heterosexual white middle class men or affluent white men in general, including queer white men who have more of the privilege to be openly queer without the same stigma that Black men have, since toxic masculine behavior is often projected onto Black men since childhood and even encouraged. There is a lot more stigma for Black queer and trans people than there is for the white queer and trans community. All these lenses need to be considered when understanding certain literature but of course there are times when not all lenses are applicable or even presented in the literature. It’s all about discernment and understanding the main focal point and message that the author is trying to get across to their audience.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.