The title of Kate Flynn's article intrigued me and I was looking forward to reading about how Up portrays size stereotypes. She starts with an analysis of Carl's size and how his behavior is associated with his bodily weight. I thought her point that shape is the essence of a character's personality and traits was valid. Ellie's long, narrow body indicates that she is active and dynamic. In contrast, Carl's round physical shape is representative of his clumsy movements. Flynn further expands on this point by pointing out that Russell is "ill suited to the outdoors because of his size." Thus, the characterization in American cinemas corresponds to the size stereotypes.
However, Flynn loses the audience by introducing irrelevant points and making bold, but ridiculous statements. A prime example of a "wtf" moment was when she stated "the lines of the waterfall are suggestive of female genitalia, consistent with the idea that the land is a woman to be tamed" while discussing the significance of land in Pixar's Up. To be honest, I have no idea what prompted this comparison of female genitalia to the waterfall... Flynn does not elaborate nor explain further and merely leaves the reader in a what-did-I-just-read state of confusion.
Another preposterous claim Flynn makes is the following statement:
"When Russell
feeds Kevin luxury foods, Pixar invites us to conflate several stereotypical
assumptions: fat people eat too many unhealthy foods; feeding is nurturing,
and nurturing is inappropriate for boys; fat makes gender ambiguous."
How exactly does being fat relate to gender ambiguity and why is nurturing inappropriate for boys? Again, Flynn puts forth an absurd argument and fails to provide any explanation for the reader.
While the start of her piece felt promising, Flynn gradually began to lose ethos and by the end of the article, I was uncertain what her original thesis was. But to be fair, it was an entertaining read due to just the sheer absurdity of some of her claims.
No comments:
Post a Comment