In 1994, Disney released the popular movie The Lion King, with its memorable
villain Scar and comic sidekicks Timon and Pumbaa. We want to look at how
gender and sexuality is constructed in these three characters in non-normative
ways. We will be using Judith Butler’s analysis of gender as
performative—something that you do rather than something that you are. Scar,
Timon and Pubmaa all subvert gender norms, and perform something other than
typical masculinity.
Throughout the movie, Scar is marked as different both
physically and through his personality. He is the only lion with green eyes, a
black mane, and is much thinner than Mufasa. His character is portrayed as a
stereotypical gay man—snarky sense of humor, effeminate movements and gestures,
theatrical behavior, drawling and feminine voice—it all clearly denotes the
trope of the fabulous gay man. In the clip we have posted, you can see how his
personality is portrayed as feminine, and at the end of it, Zazu even says to
Mufasa: “There’s one in every family.” Furthermore, Scar remains single
throughout the film—even when Simba runs away and Scar is king, he never mates
with another female or produces an heir, and he is never portrayed as
interested in any of the many female lions in the pride; in fact, he barely
interacts with the women at all. Clearly, Scar’s difference is something that
marks him as evil, however, other non-normative characters are a source for
good in the movie.
Timon and Pumbaa are a pair of male friends who live alone
in the woods as outcasts from the rest of animal “society.” Although they are
very happy and “good” characters, they are different from the other warthogs
and meerkats and that sets them apart. When Simba comes along, this male pair
raises him like their child. Interestingly, Timon and Pumbaa are never given
any credit for raising Simba into an adult. At the end of the movie they are
allowed to join the pride but they had to do something really amazing to gain
that acceptance (raise a baby lion and help reclaim the pridelands) and they do
not receive any special recognition for taking care of Simba all of the time
that he was gone. Furthermore, when Timon and Pumbaa interact with other
animals, they are often shy or afraid, and often not in control of the
situation. However, they are also some of the most beloved characters in the
Lion King, and they provide much of the fun and humor throughout the movie.
Overall, Timon and Pumbaa are marked as different but they overall are a
positive force; their difference constrains them in certain ways but it does
not make them “bad.”
Questions:
How do you see the different portrayals of Timon and Pubmaa
and Scar?
Would you rate the overall representation of Timon and
Pumbaa’s relationship as positive? Why or why not?
Do you think Scar’s portrayal is harmful to the queer
community? Why or why not?
What do you think Disney accomplishes or means to accomplish
with the inclusion of gender nonconforming characters on both sides of the
good/evil divide?
How would you relate Butler’s gender as performance to the
other characters of the Lion King, such as Rafiki or Simba? What about other
Disney movies?
I could see why some people would think that Disney portrays queer as bad because they do have a history of villains with queer performances, especially in their movies from the Disney Renaissance (Disney’s animated films starting with the Little Mermaid in 1989 to Fantasia 2000). For example, there is Ursula from the Little Mermaid, who is designed after the drag queen “Divine”, Jafar from Aladdin, Hades from Hercules and even Governor Ratcliffe from Pocahontas.
ReplyDeleteNow before everyone starts raising arms against Disney for being anti-queer, there are many examples of queer portrayals in good/heroic characters. Most recently we have Elsa from Frozen and Merida from Brave who are recognized as strong single women who don’t need a man. We also see queer performances by Genie from Aladdin and Pleakley from Lilo & Stitch who cross dress in some instances and have some feminine like qualities. Additionally, in Tarzan there is Terkina who is sexually ambivalent. Many think that Tarzan’s ape friend is a boy when in reality she is just a very tomboy female that shows no sexual attraction for any of the male apes (and being voiced by Rosie O’Donnell really seals up the queer factor haha).
Therefore, I don’t really see Scar’s portrayal as being harmful to the queer community. I believe that the fact these characters perform queerly is simply an attempt to help differentiate the characters in a way that can be easily read by young children, especially since there is a history of Disney using queer performances for both villains and heroes.
Disclaimer: I do recognize that I might be slightly biased having been a former cast member at Disney but I think I’ve got solid enough evidence for my argument :P
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI can see the point of possibly reading Scar as queer, but in my opinion, I think there is a firmer representation of the idea that "If you are a bad person, you will not have love or be able to enjoy love" in any sense of the word. I think this is evident in all animated films as we never see the villain with a significant other, giving the impression that those considered "bad" or "evil" don't deserve to have love. Therefore, I don't think I would necessarily label Scar as queer, but he serves as a bigger depiction to children of the idea that good people have love and a partner, therefore, you should be a good person. This forms a correlation, in my opinion, between being evil and being alone. Alone = wrong/weird/bad.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the relationship between Timon and Pumba, I am able to see them more so in a queer light. They are not alone, as they share the relationship between them, enforcing the point about having relationships equating to being a "good" or "bad" person. Also, I think they promote a mixed message. On one hand, yes it is positive because they are two male characters who raise a young animal into adulthood to be successful and well-known, showing the good possibilities of a queer family structure. On the other hand, however, I agree with the group's note that Timon and Pumba are only accepted into the community after they have done something noteworthy, very symbolic to how queers are accepted into previously not accepting communities.
I believe Scar does exude a queer personality in relation to his very masculine, “handsome” (I guess.. he’s a lion) strong brother Mufasa. But I don’t believe that he is homosexual in the way one may be arguing here. Scar doesn’t interact with women because it’s a Disney movie and I think it would be weird if the movie did have that aspect to it. I agree with Jenna in that a villain having a love interest is rarely ever seen, so on the sole basis of him not interacting with women I believe you cant peg Scar as queer. I believe Disney is trying to make the characters all different so in that respect they chose Scar as the complete opposite as Mufasa.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy the relationship between Timon and Pumba because it represents two men raising a child; kind of in the stereotypes we see gay men raising a child on TV today; funny and not really a sexual nature. I think how they raised Simba was healthy
I had never really thought of Scar as the gay Uncle, however, once I looked at the film in that light, I could completely see how Scar can be a queer character. I think it's damaging to the queer community because Scar is a psychologically damaged, violent individual. He struggles with not being loved by his family and then constantly struggles to be adored by others through his obsession with power. This portrays this queer character in a dangerous and damaging light. Scar is the product of being queer in an non-accepting environment. Scar ends up being a threat to normal life as well as a threat to what queer kids can or cannot turn out like. Scar is absolutely a threat to the queer community.
ReplyDeleteI am not a big Disney person and have never really watched many of their films even as a child so I don't know a whole lot about how they might utilize characters to represent certain things. However, after watching this video and reading the blog, I guess I could see where it is queer in a sense. In response to the discussion question, I do believe it is harmful to the queer community, because Scar is portrayed negatively and thus it paints the queer community in a negative light. I'm not sure if Disney is meaning to make it seem like all queer people should be viewed this way, but it definitely brings about a negative outlook and one that I find to be detrimental to the queer community.
ReplyDeleteScar’s portrayal is harmful to the queer community only in the eyes of those who read him as gay while linking that aspect of his character with his role as the villain in the film. If people use Scar as an example to uphold the idea that “gay” equates to “evil,” then yes, his portrayal is harmful to the queer community. If the two traits are not linked, there is no danger. However, with the lack of “good” gay characters, the balance is skewed, potentially creating homophobic bias in the audience.
ReplyDeleteIncluding gender nonconforming characters on both sides of the good/evil divide would provide examples of the diversity within the queer community, and more specifically show that gender nonconforming people are innately threatening to society.
Scar's portrayal could put the queer community into a negative light only if most of the audience reads Scar as queer. When first watching the clips and reading the blog entry, I did not realize that it could be read as Scar being portrayed as a gay man. The portrayal may not come across quite as well for those who aren't as aware of the sterotypes. An easier way to read the characters as queer is if they have some sort of partner or companion like Timon and Pumba. Timon and Pumba compared with Scar are portrayed differently, but both sets are sort of outcasted. Only Timon and Pumba are given a chance to be accepted by the pride.
ReplyDeleteIn viewing these clips above, I can say that when I used to watch this movie obsessively when it was released years ago, I too thought Scar's characterizations were coded as a gay male, or at least what my understanding what a gay man was. I agree with Jenna V's assessment about the subtle connections of Scar's villainy is linked to his queer behavior. Growing up, men who were flamboyant(although Scar is flamboyant lite) were definitely pointed out as evil in some ways; whether it be they were perceived as perverts, deviants, queens, etc. So as a queer boy looking for representations of himself in the media, Scar's character could come across as damaging to the LGBT community as it reinforces the idea that queer people are seeking to destroy society with their non-normative behavior. As for Scar not having a love interest in the film once he became king, I would note that in my experience of watching animated films, that if a villian did take on a love interest, it was usually through force and most times would be the love interest of their rival as a way of conquering. So if we are to argue Scar as the queer villain, it is interesting to note that Scar did not take Mufasa's wife to be his own, but downgraded her position as queen to a common lioness within the pride and didn't choose to take another female lion as his companion, which in my opinion, would reinforce the idea that queer men aren't interested in giving up their deviant behavior to appear normal to the heterosexist, patriarchal society we live in.
ReplyDeleteAs for Timon and Puumba, their relationship seemed odd to me years ago, but I never once thought of them as a gay couple, until now. Their friendship/relationship reminds me alot of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street and The Odd Couple's Felix and Oscar; which if you looked at those interactions, they seemed to be the quintessential gay couple without actually saying that's what they were. Thinking about this information, now makes me wonder if Disney was subtlely and suggestively indoctrinating us with gay respectability politics well before we would've been aware of this conditioning. I'm not as familiar with other Disney animated films to see if this how other characters who are coded as queer are represented, but it would be interesting to note nonetheless.
I would agree with Jennas statements about Pumba and Tinon not being accepted into the community until they have done something "worthy" of the attention. She brought up a very good point about queer individuals who are shunned from the community, and only gain acceptance when they have done something to affect everyone in a positive manner. This is evident with adoption in our country and the LGBT community. LGBT couples have a much harder time getting children to adopt, yet they are many times noted for being wonderful understanding parents. This "fear" of a LGBT family has become lesser over the last few years when these families have been in the news for doing charitable works, or things within their community. They are only seen as a family once they have given to their community. Much like Tinon and Pumba.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to have a deeper look into the old movie again after many years. I don't think many people would read the characters as "queer" if they don't watch it through the queer lens. Scar is a very typical "evil" character portrayed in Disney movies and Timon and Pumbaa just left an impression of happiness in my mind. But the analysis in the blos post is quite convincing that they do have some characters of queer people.
ReplyDeleteI think the relationship between Timon and Pumbaa is blurred, it could be read as either a couple, or simply two good friends who could not find a partner.Considering this situation, their distance to the other animals could also be read as they might not be queer themseves, but they are viewed by the other animals as queer, thus they are distanced by the others.
Talking abou the gender nonconforming characters, I remember reading a news report about Winnie the Pooh might be banned in a small town in Poland because he appears as gender blurred. It is interesting that most comments on the internet think that this reason is rediculious, but it's because asking a cartoon bear to be clearly masculine or feminine is redicious, not because gender nonconformative is a right thing.
It's been a really long time since I've seen this movie or any other Disney movie, but I don't remember ever thinking of scar as being a queer character. After viewing the clip, I do see how some may think of him as queer. And I do think that he could be harmful to the queer community because of the reinforcement of stereotypes, as well as the comment about there being "one in every family," which is followed by another comment about them always ruining special occasions. By including gender nonconforming characters I think Disney is trying to have wide range of characters.
ReplyDeleteI think that the villainization of scar, who clearly exudes gay tendencies is harmful to the gay community. When the movie came out, gays were not as accepted as they are today, and there was also not a lot of gay characters in the media. The fact that Scar is stereotyped in so many ways from his appearance, to his mannerisms, to his behavior is a problem in itself, because not all gay guys act or dress or behave the same. They are clearly trying to prove that Scar is gay, without actually stating so. And then the fact that he is the villain in the movie, and the black sheep of the family makes people whether it is subconscious or not, associate homosexuality with villainy. Disney may just be trying to have a wide range of characters, but they seemed to always make the gay character the villain in their earlier movies.
ReplyDeleteI think that the way Timon and Pumbaa are displayed is not bad. They are two characters that prove a same sex couple can raise a child, and although they are not accepted in to the community, I think that is just more of a narrative of the way society used to (or sometimes) looks at same sex couples who want to have children. Even if Timon and Pumbaa are not gay, they are non gender conforming because they both raise Simba together, and they are successful in doing so.
I'm going to go ahead and preface everything thing that follows with this: The Lion King is everything and always has been, and will remain, one of my favorite childhood movies alongside Toy Story lol. With that being said I never read any of these characters to be queer until Brendan briefly mentioned it in class, Now, I see that there may be clear markers of queerness in the behaviors of Scar, Timon and Pumba. I can not say that I completely agree that Scar's queer portrayal is necessarily harmful to the gay community. If he were the only one represented, I might be more inclined to agree. However, Timon and Pumba's presence in the film disrupts that argument in my opinion. Although I see the queer markers on Scar, the general public would be more likely to read Timon and Pumba as a gay couple because of their behavior (ie two boys, living alone, raising a son...) before they would identify Scar as the queer and gay uncle. Although he is villinainized, the more visibly "gay" and non-gender conforming characters are shown to be good and true friends to Simba.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that Disney has a history of portraying villains as different, or less heteronormative than the protagonists. I think that this representation could be seen as harmful to the queer community because it enforces the idea that people who are different are evil and don't deserve happiness. I don't know if Timon and Pumbaa are meant to be queer, but if they are I think that they are shown in a positive way. They are two of the most lovable characters in the movie and are responsible for helping Simba survive and prosper. I think that if Disney is trying to include queer characters in their movies that are both good and evil, it is a positive thing. I don't think that the villains should be the only ones who are seen as challenging normality.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the audience as a whole views Scar as an explicitly gay character, I still believe this portrayal can be harmful to the queer community. In line with Jenna's comment earlier, if these traits are consistently applied to villainous characters, over time these traits, and by extension anyone who exhibits them, becomes linked to villainy. I wouldn't go so far as to say Disney is consciously attempting to make its audience view gay men as evil, but by playing into the same character traits for male villains over and over, that's ultimately the message being sent. Just because certain aspects of Disney movies can be read as positive or progressive writing, such as Timon and Pumbaa's relationship or any of the recent female characters who carry themselves without love interests, does not mean that Disney movies are exempt from flawed representations of queerness.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the way society views Scar may not be good for the queer community overall. I think that adding queer characters into Disney movies is a great idea, however, it is important that these characters are not outcasts or "bad" characters all the time because it will give viewers the wrong idea about queers. There needs to be some sort of balance between good and bad queer characters in order for it to be positive for the queer community. The Lion King tries to achieve this by making Timon and Pumbaa possibly queer. Since viewers enjoy these characters, it combats the negative feelings cast on Scar. It is important to note that Scar, Timon, and Pumbaa are not "in-your-face queers". Before this blog post I had never really put that much thought into what could have been inferred from their unusual actions. The subtle hint of queer in The Lion King can easily be overlooked which is both a good and bad quality. It is good because most viewers are young children that wouldn't be able to comprehend gay or queer characters, but it is also bad because if they don't notice it, they are not learning about the queer world that they live in.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the comparison to Judith Butler's theory of "gender as performative". Throughout The Lion King, Scar is never seen having romantic relations with another male, yet, because of the way he walks, talks, and portrays himself , one can come to the conclusion that he is more feminine and possibly gay. This is seen a lot in today's society when people are judged because of the way they perform their gender. It is important for viewers to understand this aspect of the movie because it gives a little bit of insight to how being a male might mean more than just performing masculine actions.
Timon and Pumbaa seem to be the counter balance to Scar's queerness. Though Scar is more overtly queer, with his more visible non-normative behaviors, Timon and Pumbaa are celebrated and shown in a positive light in the film. From thier role as supportive characters the non-normative things that they do are seen as funny and quirky. Their stigmatization is shown as undeserved.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jenna's argument of the subtle vilification of queers, though i wouldn't exclude the possibility of Scar being "a literal homosexual lion who literally has homosexual lion sex". Personally I always thought that Scar looked older and it would make sense that he lost the throne and was shunned from his family for being homosexual or more generally queer.
I think in Scar's case it is more direct than that of Timon and Pumba. He has very typical "fabulous gay man" attributes, whereas Timon and Pumba are portrayed as merely (bachelors? friends? companions?) a queer twosome. They dont seem to portray any typical gender roles, and they both seem to share the load of caring for Simba equally. The only real cue I could find was perhaps when Pumba was trying to convince Timon of "keeping" Simba. Timon perhaps takes on a more typical masculine role as he is constantly the one who is looking after and guiding Pumba.
ReplyDeleteBut, perhaps looking for typical gender roles is not the best approach with Timon and Pumba? Perhaps Scar was meant to be easily discerned as gay/queer because he was the villain?
In this case I think the best way to question the queerness of the hilarious dynamic duo would be to review the facts of the nature of their relationship.
I do not think that it is necessarily harmful to the queer community by Scar's portrayal. I do not think that Scar is portrayed as gay, but rather his behavior is queer. If Scar was openly gay, then I believe it would be harmful to the queer community because then villainy would be associated with homosexuality. Since he is portrayed as a villain, I believe that his villainous actions can be viewed as queer since he portrayed as the antagonist and go against the norm of the protagonist, but I do not think these actions are harmful to the queer community since the queerness is subtly portrayed. There are no obvious scenes of Scar's sexuality, and therefore there are no clear signs of queerness to be associated with his antagonist actions to be harmful to the queer community.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jenna V's comment and I think she brings up a very important distinction in how this gay villiany thing works. It's the negativity attached to the behavior that Scar shows that's the problem. I'd like to add that it's a problem even further because this character isn't explored in the movie. Disney villains are often not explored in detail beyond learning of their basic motives and personalities. This is because of the assumption that kids need a very straightforward narrative with a "good" and "bad" guy (I personally have a problem with this and thoughts and feelings around it BUT ANYWAY). All we need to know that Scar is the bad guy. That much is apparent in his character design, choice of VO, and subtly effeminate nature. Since we don't delve too much into why this character is this way, it's even more damaging to have the whole effeminate nature thing attached. This character is just bad. We don't need to go into it any more.
ReplyDeleteZach makes a good point about how Disney tends to apply feminine qualities to male villains often. The good characters tend to fit the norms of society while those who are portrayed as evil and deceptive are often provided queer qualities. This does help perpetuate a heteronormative ideal, especially in younger generations, whether its direct or not. However, I'm not sure if I actually see Scar as a "queer" character. While I agree he has a dramatic air to him, he doesn't come of as rather feminine. I would also like to comment on Zazu's line at the end about "there's one in every family". I don't see him as pointing out that Scar is queer, but rather as a brooding, "blaming" type. Someone who blames their family for their misfortunes rather than owning their own faults.
ReplyDeleteAs for Timon and Pumba, I definitely can see them being displayed as a queer couple essentially. While obviously their relationship is supposed to be a friendship, the fact that they acted as parents to Simba within the film is clear that an unconventional family, regardless of gender of the parents can work. In my views, it presents a positive representation of gay parents raising a child, as Simba had a wonderful childhood as far as I could tell. I agree with the lack of serious reward for raising the future king of the savanna though. It could be seen as queer couples needing more verification to be seen as legitimate to the rest of society.
This is a very interesting post. I have never considered Scar or Timon and Pumbaa as gay or queer characters, but I suppose this is because I haven't seen this movie since I was about ten. I think that Scar could represent a queer character because his movement are a lot more feminine than Mufasa's and and he is physically much thinner. I do not however believe that this portrayal of him is harmful to the gay community because there is a positive example of gay characters as well (timon and pumbaa). I don't think its bad to have a bad gay character and a good gay character.
ReplyDeletefollowing a T-55 finish in the 2017 U.S. Open at Erin Hills, Ernie Els knew that he may have just competed for the final time in the event. Despite winning two U.S. Opens, one in 1994 at Oakmont and another in 1997 at Congressional, the Big Easy was still out of luck, because the USGA does not give out lifetime exemptions to those who pass golf's toughest test. Winners get exemptions into the next 10 Opens, though Els played in the next 20 thanks to qualifying in a number of different categories during that span.us open golf live stream
ReplyDelete