Hercules vs Heracles

  Ah Disney you have finally done it. You have chosen a story from the lands of ancient Greece and... actually did a decent job making a movie out of it. Hercules was an entertaining movie and it really helped show the conflict that Herc was going through. But despite the fact that it was a decent movie with good songs, how true is it to the myth of Heracles.
  First and foremost, it is worth noting that the actual name of the afore mentioned  hero is Heracles. Heracles is the Greek name for Hercules and if Disney wanted to keep it close to the source material, they would have named him Heracles. Hercules (the name we are all familiar with) is the name give to him when the Romans took over and STOLE the Greek mythology. Sorry guys I get a little passionate about topics like this. Anyways, in the myth Heracles is a demigod (If you are familiar with the Percy Jackson series then you know what a demigod is) and is born on Earth. He finds out his true heritage as he gets older and has to do seven labors to prove that he is worthy of entering Olympus. Among these tasks are: slaying the Nemean Lion, Killing the Hydra, Bringing Cerberus to King Eurysthius, and other difficult tasks. In the end Heracles earned the right to enter Olympus and there he stayed, and lived his immortal life.
  So how accurate is the movie? Well lets start at the beginning. First Hercules is born in Olympus and it is implied that he is actually a god. Then Hades abducts the baby and nearly turns him mortal but is foiled when Hercules adopted parents spoil the party. Hercules then grows up and discovers his true heritage like in the myth but instead of being told to do seven labors, he is told to seek out a satyr and show what it means to be a hero. Hey at least in Ancient Greece they were a little more direct, but then again, I guess you need to teach the kids something. Anyways he finds the satyr and Hades meanwhile is making it his personal vendetta to get Hercules killed. After Hercules kills a hydra, slays a Nemean Lion and has a ton of fangirls, he is still not considered a hero. So far Disney has only messed up here in the beginning and also they messed up by giving Hercules a love interest. But that doesn't even come close to Hades deciding to suddenly free the titans, HIS SWORN ENEMY IN THE MYTHS. This just gives Hercules another problem as he has to choose whether to save his girlfriend Meg or the Olympians. In the end he does both and defeats Hades in Tartarus. Then in a twist ending that would anger most people who actually took time to look up the myth, Herc chooses to stay on Earth with the love of his life rather than choose immortality. I will overlook this because it is a pretty sweet ending and it does teach a good lesson of what it means to be a hero.

  The thing that really makes me a little annoyed is that Hades, an Olympian god, is allying himself with the Titans, his sworn enemy. Also if Hades really is freeing all the Titans in that seen, why are there only five and why isn't Cronos with them? These are just nitpicks at this point but from getting the Greek name confused with the Roman name, to having him be born as a god, to even having him reject immortality (again will be overlooked because it was a sweet ending), Disney kind of messed up the myth for me. This doesn't mean it is a bad movie. By no means, I would actually recommend it if you are curious about the legend of Hercules. Just make sure you read the actual story after if you're into historical accuracy like I am.

  Well this was a fun week. Sorry if I seemed to have gotten passionate in some parts, this is a story from my heritage after all, so for me this week it was a double win. I got to analyze a Disney movie, and a movie based on a myth from Ancient Greece. Until next readers.

The Hunchback of the Paris Inquisition

Released in 1996

  Hello Internet and all welcome back to History of Disney, where today we get medieval. Normally movies try to avoid touchy subjects such as religion, but this is 90's Disney we are talking about. In 1996 Disney came out with a movie based off a book written by Victor Hugo, and it is called the Hunchback of Notre Dame. In this movie we see that a Mr. Claude Frollo has a bit of a vendetta against the gypsies and anyone he deems lower than him. The result, a near Spanish Inquisition style death for Esmerelda. But how close is this method of thinking to the renaissance era thinking that dominated France in the High Middle Ages.

  First off it is worth noting that Frollo is the "Minister of Justice" for Paris and he apparently takes this task very seriously as he kills an innocent gypsy for entering Paris illegally, and tries to kill the protagonist. The fact that Frollo's sense of justice is very harsh and hypocritical, we all know he is the bad guy. However I  don't see him as just the bad guy, I also see him as some Christians out there today. In the song "Hellfire," Frollo makes a claim that he is so much purer than pretty much everyone else in Paris, but as w see later, that isn't the case. From our perspective it's ironic. A man of who believed that he was righteous, ends up fall to a metaphorical version of hell. Does this not sound like some Christians we see in certain areas of our lives. We think we are all so holy that we criticize everyone's minute faults and yet we are oblivious to our own problems.

  Now how is this movie linked to the Spanish Inquisition? Simple, it was a matter of repent or die. No third option, no alternatives, you are quite literally forcing repentance onto to them and using fear as a mechanism. This was common throughout Europe as Christianity went through the Crusades and attacking anyone who wasn't a Christian back home. These supposed infidels were then dragged away  by the clergy and forced to "confess" whatever sin they committed and put their faith back in the church. Do you see how flawed this system is? All it takes is one false accusation, by  someone who doesn't like you, and you could be burnt at the stake for a crime you didn't commit. Well this is what happened in the Middle Ages and when you have men like Frollo as the Minister of Justice, anyone who Frollo sees as a threat or deems unworthy for his perfect world, could dragged off and burned alive.

And the inside took 5 years alone.

  If you watched the movie and saw the people begin to rise up and attack Frollo, you may have been confused as to why. Well aside from the fact that these peasants have just lost their homes, they were also about to lose their church. In Medieval Society, the church was such a center for every day life, one could imagine how the people would react when they saw their social link being attacked. Also, it's Notre Dame that's being attacked. If I was in that position I'd defend that building, because the church took over 100 years to build. Notre Dame was started in 1163 and was completed in 1345. So yeah, I 'd defend that building with my last breath.

  So, what have we learned? Well we have learned that Frollo is a hypocritical jerk who makes his own spin on the Spanish Inquisition by hunting Gypsies. We also learned that these people had more than enough reason to go out and overthrow the corrupt minister. Thank you for your valuable time, and I'll see you next week.

Agrabah and Genie of the Lamp

This movie came out in 1992 and came on VHS in '93.
Feel old yet?

  Hello Internet, follow me as I take you to a "far away place, where the caravan camels roam. Where the dunes are immense and the heat is intense." It's Arabia guys, I'm taking you to Arabia today. The reason I'm taking you to Arabia is because this week we are analyzing the possible time frame in which Aladdin takes place. So get your magic carpets and join as I show you a "whole new world" and a whole new POV on Aladdin.

Agrabah is Somewhere in this General area

 So this shouldn't come as a shock to us as we all know that Aladdin takes place in Arabia during the Middle Ages. How can we discern this, well aside from the fact that the first song of the movie is called ARABIAN Nights, I think it's safe to assume that Agrabah is a kingdom on the Arabian peninsula. As for the reasoning behind the Middle Ages, well as I said in my blog on Mulan, Disney has a fascination for the Middle Ages. Also the original story was written during the Abbasid Dynasty in a collection of stories called One Thousand and One Arabian Nights and Disney loves trying to stick to their source material as we have also seen.  Despite a few hiccups here and there with the continuities of the Arab world in the Middle Ages, they were quite right on some things.

"Tonight the part of Aladdin will
be played by a sinister ugly man."
-Genie

 
  Let's start with Jafar, the Sultan's advisor who longs to rule the kingdom (hey another advisor seeking power). AS we see in the movie, Jafar practically controls the Sultan and uses him to accomplish his nefarious deeds. Now is this accurate with the real thing, were advisors really using Sultans as a means to carry out their deeds. Well surpassingly yes. As the threat of assassination from future heirs or rival kings proved too great for the mighty Sultans, they would lock themselves into the lavish living place known as their palace. Now as we see throughout the movie the Sultan never really leaves his palace for anything and trusts his advisor Jafar, who clearly can go anywhere he want and do what he want and the Sultan would never know. So is the Sultan stupid? No he is just way too trusting and really ignorant to the world around him.
 
  Another question I can see being raised by you readers is, if the Arabian peninsula at this time is ruled by the Abbasid dynasty, why does the Sultan of Agrabah have autonomous rule? Is he actually the Sultan of the Abbasid dynasty and Agrabah is just Disney's way of saying Abbasid? Ok firstly, slow down and you will realize that Agrabah is a city, not an empire. Secondly, it is worth noting that because of rivalries among Princes and other kingdoms the Abbasid Dynasty was actually a fractured empire. By 820 a group known as the Samanids were beginning to excursive their independence and although the Abbasid were able to recover modestly, they still suffered greatly and eventually, many different groups of Princes and governors took control of vast territories and fractured the empire internally. It is also worth noting one minor little detail in the song Prince Ali, "He faced the galloping hordes, a hundred bad guys with swords." Now let's pause and think, who would be referred to as the galloping hordes? If you said wait for it... "The Mongols" then you would be correct. At the time of the fall of Baghdad in 1258 the Mongol Empire was wreaking havoc on the world, but the y never took over Arabia. My theory is that Agrabah is a survivor of the Mongol hordes after the battle Ain Jalut (1260) in modern day Israel, which prevented the Mongols from taking over Egypt and North Africa.

"They're finally getting married."
-Genie (Aladdin and the King of Thieves)

  So in the end I can officially determine that Aladdin and Jasmine get married around the 1270s, after  the heroic  victory and placing them 200 years before tangled and Frozen, and 100 years after the events in Mulan. Thank you all for Journeying with me to Agrabah, and join me next week as I choose to tackle The Hunchback of Notre Dame and see how it mirrors the Spanish Inquisition. Until next week friends.

The trial of Yzma (Emperor's New Groove analysis Pt 2)

  All rise, court is now in session. Today's case is against Yzma as to whether she is guilty of being crazy or whether she has a just cause for wanting to "kill" Kuzco. The prosecution, all the people who watched The Emperor's New Groove, The Defense, me (Oh boy) and the jury is you.
 
  The prosecution would like to make an opening statement. They claim that Yzma is a single-minded villian who has always been scheming of taking the throne and her questionable experiments helped in leading to getting rid of Kuzco. When she heard he was still alive she practically conducted a manhunt and searched the Incan Empire for this one man. And why would she do all of this? To protect her new position and rule the empire for life. In the second movie we all see that she uses her unforrtunate henchman Kronk as a scapegoat to help her in her endeavors to take back the throne and kick out Kuzco again. If this doesn't scream that she is crazy, dangerous, and an anarchist, then the prosectution doesn't know what does. The prosecution rests.

  Unfortunately for the defense, because all the peole who have been around or interacted with Yzma are incredibly biased, I call upon no witnesses, yet hope that the following evidence will influence the jury's descision.
  First, I would like to point out something about Yzma's job and occupation in the beginning of the movie. As the jury may know, she was the Emperor's advisor. Now this may not sound like a big deal to some, but I would like to point out that in an empire the emperor can't make all the descisions and he/she (because there are some empresses in history) may notknow what to do in certain situations. Cue the Emperor's advisor. Their role is to assist the Emperor and give him wisdom in his actions and descisions. And I would ask the Jury to observe who the Emperor is... Kuzco, someone who clearly doesn't know how to run an empire (more on that later). This would lead Yzma to influence Kuzco's decisions a lot and as a result she is technically ruling the empire already indirectly. So I ask the Prosecution, why would she want to rule the empire if she already has a grip on Kuzco and the empire.
 
 OBJECTION!  (I've always wanted to do that) The Prosecution would like to address the fact that it was not enough for her. She is a power hungry maniac who has no concern for others, as long as she has the throne, she will never be satisfied.

  To the Prosecution I would like to ask this. You know who else has no concern for others? Kuzco! Yes he has a change of heart in the end, but in the beginning I should remind everyone of how painfully self-centered this man is. First we see him reject down would be brides, after kicking out and old man by the way. Then he brings in a peasant to tell him that he is basically going to destroy his village, just to build a summer house. He then procedes to fire and exile Yzma after she is caught filling in for the emperor and this helps give her motive for what she does. Members of the jury, I would like to draw your attention to other people in history who assassinatedemperors and improved the condition of the world/empire: Ehud killing Eglon and freeing Israel, the death of Caligula. It doesn't help Kuzco's case that no one really liked or cared about his reign as is seen at his "funeral." Therefore while Yzma's attempt at assassination were horrifying, she was trying to protect the empire from the selfish clutches of Kuzco's hands.
  As for the second movie and Yzma's behavior their: I refuse to acknowledge that movie as a true sequel to the Emperor's New Groove. I'm not saying it's bad, in fact it's actually pretty good, but unfortunately I don't find it as suitable evidence for this case.

  For my closing remark. While some members of the jury may already find this woman guilty, I implore you to consider the evidence presented before you and while this woman is guilty of many things, Kuzco is just as guilty as Yzma for driving her to this point.

  Leave your verdict in the comments below and I will see you next week when we analyze Alladin.

Kuzco, Is he really the center of the Universe?

Emperor's New Groove came out in 2000

  Hello Internet and all of you night owls (I say this this because I am posting at 10:39 PM). Welcome to History of Disney, where we get our groove on and ride our llamas to the sunset. I have a confession to make. I love the Emperors New Groove, and why wouldn't I? It's got a great lesson to learn, its got humor that is targeted for all ages, and it has lovable characters. This week we won't be analyzing for a specific time frame of the Emperor's New Groove, but we will be analyzing the historical accuracy between two specific parts, the restaurant scene and what the peasants eat, and the idea of Kuzco really being seen as the center of the universe.

Yes that thing in the center of the picture is a pill bug.

  So for all of you history buffs out there, here is a quick little aside on where the movie is based from. The movie's setting is the Incan Empire. This makes sense, because there are no iron tools in sight, there are llamas doing the hard work and there is distinct mountainous feel that places it in the Andes Mountain Range. Not to mention the bugs... oh the bugs. This is actually a perfect seg-way into our next topic of the peasants meals. Now clearly there were no restaurants in the Incan Empire like it is shown in the movie. You will also be glad to know that from my diligent research, that those pill bugs that Pacha and Kuzco eat, are not even close to what real peasants at the time ate. At the time of the Incan Empire, most of the peasants ate vegetables and small animals like Guinea Pigs and possibly even llamas at times (now it all makes sense why they chose bugs over this menu). They also consumed maize (corn) and even potatoes at times with their meals. Peasants would also have their meals twice a day and spend more time working in the fields than doing half of what Pacha and Kuzco are doing.

  Speaking of Kuzco, let's analyze his claim of being center of the universe. In most societies we are taught that many times the emperor is seen as a god. Here's a brief list to prove my point : Egypt, Rome, Japan, China,  the Aztecs, just to name a few. As for the Inca, they are no different. According to their mythology there is a sun god named Inti and Incan Emperors were believed to have descended at one point from Inti himself.  In most ancient pantheons we also learn that sun gods are usually considered above more highly than the other gods, and in a society like the Inca it would make sense that the sun god be important to them. So Kuzco does have some meat to his argument when he says the universe revolves around him. However this does not excuse his appalling behavior and it almost makes the villain look justified in their attempts to get rid of Kuzco.

  Well I have figured that this blog was too short this week and I have decided that next week that we will look at  the Emperor's New Groove again, and we may also use its less glamorous sequel to assert the fact if Yzma is justified in her actions for why she does what she does, or if she is just a crazy old lady bent on taking the throne, the answer might surprise you. But until next week thank you for staying up late with me as I prove to you that the Inca did not eat gargantuan pill bugs for lunch and that while Kuzco still is a huge jerk, his argument of a perfect world beginning and ending with him, makes a little sense.

  Thank you for your time, and as always I will see you in the next post.

The Sword in the Stone, and a time traveling Magician

  Hello Internet, welcome to History of Disney, where the Middle Ages are glorified like no tomorrow (thanks Eurocentrism). Now I must confess, as a kid I loved the idea of being a knight, slaying dragons and meeting wizards, and thus as a result I loved movies that were staged in the Medieval Era. So as a kid I grew up loving this movie, The Sword and the Stone. For those of you who haven't heard of this movie I'll give you a run down. Sword of the Stone was made by Walt Disney Pictures in 1963 and tells the story of a boy named Arthur and his adventure with the seemingly time-travelling wizard Merlin. It's a 60's take on a classic story, and we are going to compare this version to the actual tale of King Arthur and the sword in the Stone.

  The tale of Arthur begins in England as the king Unther Pendragon falls ill and dies. In the tale, Merlin takes the boy and gives him Sir Ector, who is a loyal ally to the king. When the king finally dies, the problem of the throne rears it's ugly head. Rival dukes and lords fought over who would rule the country. Soon the nobles asked Merlin for a solution, and Merlin creates the sword in the stone, saying that whoever pulls the stone will be the true king of England. Well like my valiant attempts to use "epigram" correctly in a sentence (AP Lang. joke for those of you who understand it), many nobles came forward to try and remove the Sword but all failed. The sword soon became forgotten and England fell into more disrepair. After a few years Merlin reveals himself to Arthur and they become great friends. The scrawny Arthur is taught that brains are better than brawn, and then we reach the climax of the story. It was decided that in order to find a king, the nobles agreed to hold a jousting tournament on New Years Day. The prize? Why none other than the crown of England of course. Arthur and his step-brother Kay go to the tournament, (Arthur as the squire) and realizes that they forgot Kay's sword at the inn they were staying at. Arthur runs to get Kay's sword but can't find it. He then proceeds to a churchyard and pulls the sword from the stone. Kay tries to take advantage of the situation and declare himself the one who pulled the sword. His father Sir Ector, decides to test kay to make sure he is the true king, by having him pull the sword himself. Kay fails and Arthur pulls the sword from the stone again and is made King of England, and the rest is history. (OK it's not actually history, its more of a legend really)

  So what about the movie? Is Disney accurate towards the Legend and keeps true to it's origins? Surprisingly yes, although there are some parts that Disney had to make up, because the Legend of the Sword in the Stone is actually really short. Arthur does grow up under Sir Ector and his step-brother Kay. Merlin does reveal himself to Arthur and they do become friends. Merlin does teach Arthur that brain over brawn  wins every time, there is a joust to determine who is the King of England, and Kay's sword being left the inn correct. They even got Arthur's description correct: a scrawny boy who was destined to become a squire at first. However, in the legend it is implied that Arthur was able to get in the inn and Kay's sword may have been stolen and in the movie Arthur can't gets locked out of the inn because everyone is at the joust. Also it is worth noting that in the legend Merlin had a huge part in Arthur's life and decided his fate from birth, but movie Merlin, didn't even know who Arthur was until he crashed into his house. The movie has also altered his age but a couple years: in the legend Arthur is 15 years old when he removes the sword from the stone, and in the movie he is around 12 years old when he becomes king. Despite some of these differences the movie remains somewhat accurate to the legend (Even with it's fourth wall breaking moments, like knowing that the Legend of Arthur would be made into a movie).

  There is one thing that bugs me though, would people real joust for such high stakes such as the crown for ALL of a kingdom and is jousting really as violent as they make it sound in the movie, swords and all? Well I did some digging and I found out that at one time jousting was actually a military tactic for heavy cavalry and became a sport around the 15th Century onward. So I guess that would explain the violence, and they are playing for high stakes after all. Jousts were used as ways to get honor from battle (wow honor seems like a big deal these past couple weeks) or, even at times, used to get money, land, and titles from a grateful liege. So is it possible that the title of King of England could be used as a reward for a tournament. It's quite possible, but we will never really know. It would make sense though when you look at the context of the tournament. England has been leaderless for 12-15 years and they need a king desperately. So therefore it would make sense for England to hang it's entire future in the hands of knights competing for glory. 

  This has been a fun ride through a movie that is not quite as  known in this generation. If you have never seen this movie before then I would recommend that you watch it. It is a really good movie after all.

Fa Mulan vs Hua Mulan (and Shan Yu)

Mulan: 2004

  So last week we were able to place Arrendelle in the time frame of the Holy Roman Empire. Now this week I have chosen to tackle the movie Mulan. This is another movie that I'm willing to bet everyone has seen at least once, and who can blame you it is a great movie. Anyways, enough talk, let's get down to business and try to place a date on the movie Mulan.

  The movie Mulan is based off an ancient Chinese ballad written in the 6th century AD, just before the founding of the Tang dynasty, called the Ballad of Hua Mulan. Many adaptations have placed her anywhere from the beginning of the Tang dynasty to the Mongolian Khaganate. However because this is a blog based off Disney movies, we will be only looking at the Disney adaptation of this ancient story.

 
  So anyways when the movie starts we see the Great Wall of China in all of it's animated glory. The wall from what we can see looks completed and a highly developed signaling system has been made so that the Chinese soldiers can warn each other if they are under attack and word will spread quickly. And now for the historical part: the Great Wall of China was started in 206 BC by Shi Huangdi of the Qin dynasty and was slowly constructed over time. The majority of the wall that we see today was created by the Ming dynasty, which came after the Mongols. It is also worth noting the architecture of some of the buildings in China. Clearly this is a time in Chinese History in which elaborate palaces were built and the buildings looked like they were built around the time of the Middle ages in Europe.

The Song Dynasty at it's height

  How can I be so confident about this taking place during the Middle Ages. Well one, if one hasn't noticed already, Disney has kind of a fascination with the Middle ages. Two If you pay attention to the armor and weapons, the Chinese soldiers still rely on swords, spears, bows, and arrows for weapons. They also rely on...cannons? But Jacob, I can hear some of you thinking, I thought you said in your last blog gunpowder wasn't accepted as a weapon until the 1500s. How can China have cannons in the middle ages? Well my friends, from what we learned in history classes as well as from our Eurocentric history books, we can learn that China was the first for a lot of stuff, gunpowder was one of them. China invented gunpowder around 850 AD, during the Tang dynasty but was not used as a weapon until 904 AD in the Song Dynasty. This definitely points to the Song dynasty as a possible contender. It also narrows our timeframe to anywhere from 904 AD- 1279.

  Now we get the fun part of analyzing the villains. First off we notice that Shan Yu and his men are able to scale the Great Wall of China, almost as if they had done it before. Then there is their conduct in fighting that comes into playas well. They ride around on horseback almost all the time, and are quite good at it I might add, and are pretty skilled archers. They also have a habit of completely burning villages and killing all the inhabitants mercilessly. They have huge strength in numbers and are clearly feared throughout all of China. There is just one problem though... Shan Yu and the Huns, are not The Huns. Yes, from what we learn in History, the Huns sacked Han China and lived in Central Asia. But keep in mind, That was around the same time as the fall of Rome, and the Huns were clearly in Europe by the Song Dynasty. Heck, they weren't even called the Huns, they were called the Kingdom of Hungary. No the attributes I have described are the clear attributes of another more feared group to the Chinese. That's right Shan Yu and his men are possibly a small raiding party part of none other than, wait for it..... THE MONGOLS.  (Insert Mongoltage Here).

 
  The Mongols created their empire around 1279 AD and upon further analysis I have found that China didn't start using cannons until 1100AD, 179 years before the Mongol invasion. Also people who survived AP world history, or world history in general will remember that the Song Dynasty was split into two empires around 1127 AD, around the same time cannons were used in combat! I believe that Mulan takes place just a year moths before the Song Dynasty is forced to take up shelter behind the Yangtze River. Therefore I can comfortably place Mulan to take place anywhere form 1100 AD- 1127 AD, 300 years before either Tangled or Frozen take place.

  Thank you for enduring through my ramble on Shan Yu and go forth and Bring Honor to us All.