Mean Ladies: Transgendered Villains in Disney Films

AMANDA PUTNAM

“I want to watch one without a mean lady.”

That’s what my three-year-old daughter said to me last spring, hoping I’d be able to find a Disney film for her to watch that didn’t have a scary female character in it. Skeptically, already considering the overwhelming common knowledge of evil stepmothers in fairy tales, I investigated the ever-growing children’s DVD pile in our home, setting aside film after film after film with yet another nasty antagonist in it. But as I considered each Disney villain, especially in regard to his or her gendered characteristics, what I discovered truly gave me pause.

As we already know, most of the heroes and heroines of the beloved Disney film franchise are hyper-heterosexual—they fall in love, get married, and, as we understand it, live happily every after, often singing, dancing, and acting googley-eyed right off into the sunset.¹ Indeed, the primary characters reveal heterosexual goals by offering stereotypical and exaggerated portrayals of a traditionally gendered appearance (which then attracts an equally stereotypical character of the other sex). Later, these primary characters reinforce that identification through conventional behavior within their romantic relationships, as well as through their stated marital goals. These static identifications carefully craft a unified portrayal of happy heterosexism, which is clearly marked as the path to contentment and goodness.

But what I didn’t realize until I fruitlessly examined that pile of DVDs was that the villains of Disney films also offer a distinct pattern via appearance and behavior—one that is quite disparate from the hyper-heterosexual heroes and heroines, and one that is disturbingly problematic. In contrast to the heterosexist leads, many of the villains display transgendered attributes—depicted as women with either strong masculine qualities or as strangely de-feminized, while the male bad guys are portrayed as effeminate, often complete with stereotypical limp-wristed affectation. These repeated motifs become even more disconcerting when they are coupled with the evil machinations for which, well, villains are known. In other words, animated characters that offered transgendered characteristics that were positive or even simply neutral might be worth noticing to determine how or why that character related to others, especially the heterosexist leads; however, when gender-bending traits are assigned strictly to villains, then tension arises in terms of determining what, exactly, Disney is preaching so heartily and so frequently to its preschool choir.

The boundary-crossing of gender roles occurs in many Disney films, most notably in the Princess series, but also in animal-themed films as well. Specifically, several villainous female characters are masculinized in distinct ways, for example the stepmother and stepsisters in the Cinderella series and Ursula in The Little Mermaid.² These females are certainly the “mean ladies” my daughter wanted to avoid. However, the gender-bending traits appear within male villains as well, as they are given overt (and even garish) feminine traits—some bordering on an implicit homosexual characterization. Specifically The Lion King’s Scar, Aladdin’s Jafar, and Pocahontas’s Ratcliffe also become transgendered villains, and eventually, my daughter grouped these characters as “mean ladies” too.

But Disney creating transgendered characters, of course, is not the issue, as doing so simply reflects society at large in a broader, more inclusive manner. As the organization Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) indicates, “transgendered people are individuals of any age or sex who manifest characteristics, behaviors or self-expression, which in their own or someone else’s perception, is typical of or commonly associated with persons of another gender.” Thus, transgendered characteristics are those in which the sex of a person is not entirely congruent with their gender identity or actions. In other words, those who cross boundaries of traditional and/or stereotypical gender identities may appear to be subtly, or even flamboyantly, transgendered.

However, when transgendered qualities are marked as only apparent in evil characters, then a stigmatized standard of normative behavior is being created and promoted. Meredith Li-Vollmer and Mark E. LaPointe indicate in their article “Gender Transgression and Villainy in Animated Film,” that “Gender is established and sustained by socially required identificatory displays; through interaction, gender is continually exhibited or portrayed, and thus comes to be seen as ‘natural.’”³ Likewise, when gender is exhibited in ways that have been identified socially as “unnatural,” social stigmas or prejudicial evaluations may be incited. Li-Vollmer and LaPoint continue, stating, “By performing gender outside of normative expectations, individuals may therefore draw into question much more than their gender: In a culture with firmly naturalized constructions of gender, gender transgression may also cast doubt on a person’s competence, social acceptability, and morality.”⁴ In many of Disney’s films, the villains portrayed are not only the bad guys in terms of their nefarious choices and desires, but also due to their so-called deviant behaviors via their gender performance. By creating only wicked characters as transgendered, Disney constructs an implicit evaluation of transgenderism, unequivocally associating it with cruelty, selfishness, brutality, and greed.

Obviously, their complex gender identities are not what make these Disney villains wicked though. All of the villains act despicably: some bully and torment, while others are power-hungry or obsessive. As noted in The Disney Villain, “their behavior is aberrant, they are seemingly more colorful than the average person and they cause intense things to happen.”⁵ In fact, “the character with evil intent supplies the strongest of contests throughout the performance.”⁶ Their villainy creates the situation from which the hero and heroine must escape—and from whom the heroes are most clearly defined. In other words, “we need evil to locate our good.”⁷ The villains create the storyline—they have the plan, the methods, and the personality to problematize the situation—and typically that storyline also “disrupt[s] and frustrate[s] heterosexuality’s dominance” by antagonizing the happily-ever-after of the heroes and heroines.⁸ The princesses and their princes simply react to those plans, allowing their “goodness” to be shown via their reactions to the bad guys. And yet, these evil actions or desires have very little to do with their gender-bending portrayals—in fact they are superfluous from them. However, it is the noxious combination of transgendered characteristics with these characters’ evil plots and exploits that makes this spicy blend so unpalatable once clearly recognized—and yet, that combination goes unrealized by most viewers, whether child or adult—accepted without examination, reinforcing the heterosexism of current contemporary culture.

To best understand the villains’ complicated gender identities, it’s first important to examine the high profiles of the main characters to which they are contrasted. The dominant heterosexuality of the heroes and heroines is significant because it helps display the stark dissimilarity of the villains’ transgendered depiction. For many of the leading male and female characters, their heterosexuality is illustrated first through their appearance. Strong, commanding princes and other handsome male leads are coupled with young beautiful women, many with long hair and most in flowing attire, which emphasizes their hour-glass figures.

Disney princesses are most frequently shown wearing one main outfit, which was created to reinforce their heterosexuality. All of their clothes are form-fitting, with a few of them also revealing cleavage.⁹ Sleeping Beauty, Belle, and Tiana all bare the tops of their breasts via ballroom gowns with low necklines. Similarly, Cinderella wears low, scoop-necked dresses that emphasize a small waist and rounded bust. In Pocahontas, the lead character wears a one-shouldered mini-dress, which exposes both ample cleavage and long legs. Jasmine wears an off-the-shoulder bra with flowing, transparent harem pants, which linger several inches below her navel, and Ariel wears only shells on her breasts, while the top of her mermaid tail similarly dips intriguingly low beneath her belly button. In making each heroine’s outfit form-fitting, especially around her breasts, waist, and hips, Disney accentuates the ideal heterosexual female figure to viewers: curvy breasts and hips, an unrealistically small waist—and tight apparel to show it all off.

In fact, critiquing Pocahontas’s appearance in more depth suggests a concerted effort to make her hyper-heterosexual. While Nakoma, Pocahontas’s best friend, wears a revealing mini-dress too, the difference in their appearance is considerable. Both women have tiny waists; however, Pocahontas has extremely large breasts in comparison to Nakoma’s more modest bosom, emphasizing Pocahontas as the female lead. Discussing the dubious historical accuracy of transforming Pocahontas into a clearly much older (and sexier) woman than the actual Powhatan princess of American lore, Mark I. Pinsky indicates that “the transformation of a preteen ... to a nubile babe in off-the-shoulder buckskin, with pouty, collagen lips”¹⁰ should not be overlooked. In fact, supervising animator Glen Keane explained “Jeffrey Katzenberg (then the chairman of Walt Disney Studios) said he wanted her to be the most idealized and finest woman ever made.”¹¹ Clearly, like others in the Disney Princess series, Pocahontas’s appearance heavily markets the heterosexual feminine vision.

A proliferation of stereotypically female behaviors, such as standard finishing school traits, pre-occupations with domestic work, as well as an affinity for animals also mark many of the princess characters as ultra-feminine, at least as Disney defines it. Even with no apparent dancing lessons, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Belle, and Tiana are light on their feet as they dance with their respective Princes. Of course, all of the princesses sing well since each Disney film is a musical, but Ariel also has the lead singing role in the production which starts the film. Both Cinderella and Tiana show amazing grace and poise, with Cinderella being able to balance three tea trays (one on her head!) while going upstairs to serve her stepfamily, and Tiana similarly balancing a variety of plates and trays while waitressing. Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty clean houses while smiling, seemingly enjoying the work. Likewise Tiana demonstrates a strong work ethic to clean and renovate an abandoned building so as to become a chef for her new restaurant. The princesses also have numerous animal friendships, which they nurture maternally. Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty befriend forest animals and house mice, while Ariel befriends fish, crabs, and a crane. Likewise, Jasmine’s “only friend” before she leaves the palace is her huge pet tiger. Tiana actually becomes a frog, and is then happily assisted by numerous swamp bugs and creatures. While Belle is primarily friendly with the people of the castle who were transformed into furniture and household goods, these characters act in similar ways to the animal friends of other princesses. These traditional female behaviors, used as standardized Disney tropes of femininity, signal to viewers that the princesses are all heterosexual, maintaining goals of marriage, domestic life, and family.

Disney heroes typically play a smaller part than their princess; however they too embody heterosexual characteristics in their appearance and behavior, thus providing male balance to the film. Taller than each respective princess, broad-shouldered, square-jawed, and muscular, their attributes become standardized heterosexual male physical characteristics. They also participate in “manly” activities, such as horseback riding, hunting, sailing, sword-fighting, and even hand-to-hand combat, when necessary. Additionally, they share two crucial characteristics: they fall in love with the heroine immediately,¹² and they rescue her when needed.¹³ For example, Cinderella and her Prince sing, “So This Is Love” as they dance for the first time, while Ariel falls in love with Prince Eric upon seeing him from afar on his boat. Thus, the appearance and behavior of the male-female leads emphasize their heterosexuality, and that flirtation is rewarded: most of the princesses marry their prince at the end of the film,¹⁴ underscoring the goals of heterosexual attraction, love, marriage, and eventually, family.

Even Disney’s animal royalty depict hyper-heterosexuality in similar ways as their human counterparts. In The Lion King, King Mufasa and his mate, Sarabi, are happily married, with their newborn cub Simba introduced at the beginning of the film. The lion couple adheres to traditional gender roles in raising their son: Mufasa shares his wisdom with Simba about their ancestors and Simba’s place as the future king, while Sarabi ensures Simba is clean, fed, and obedient. Soon, viewers find out Simba and his childhood friend, Nala, are betrothed, asserting another standard heterosexual goal of marriage even though they are only young cubs. When the two lions meet again as young adults, they immediately fall in love, reassuring viewers that they will willingly marry each other to fulfill the heterosexual agenda. Clearly, Disney’s royalty, whether human or animal, portray a safely traditional heterosexual view of the world, which offers a clear contrast to the complexity of the transgendered villains who are introduced slightly later in each film.

Dramatic and daring, the villains often outperform their heterosexual rivals, setting up a transparent comparison between “normative” and “deviant” gendered behaviors, but also connecting the villains’ transgenderism with sarcasm, selfishness, cruelty, greed, and brutality. Many of the female Disney villains are subtly masculine—their faces, body shape, and behavior lend “mannish” traits to their characters.¹⁵ In portraying them this way, the villains contrast sharply with the ultra-feminine princesses. This allows my daughter, one of Disney’s intended audience, to recognize more easily who is “good” in these films—and who is not. But it also gives a bewildering message regarding difference, suggesting that real transgendered people are extremely dangerous and to be avoided at all costs.

Lady Tremaine, the stepmother in the Cinderella series, and her two daughters, Drizella and Anastasia, are supposed to be mean—viewers already know this from the Grimms’ fairy tale on which Disney’s film is based. Likewise, various versions of the tale exclaim their ugliness.¹⁶ But the way Disney portrays their villainy via transgendered characteristics is what is fascinating—and disturbing.

In contrast to the lithe feminine figure of Cinderella, both stepsisters are decidedly masculine. Neither stepsister has breasts as both girls are flat-chested, appearing, in fact, square-bodied, with no difference in width between their chest and their waist. The complete absence of their breasts makes them appear both mannish and non-reproductive, contrasting strongly with Cinderella and other princess figures, with their heterosexual reproductive agendas. Likewise, instead of the gently scooped or deep necklines of the princesses, Drizella and Anastasia head off to the ball wearing squared-off necklines, which accentuates their flat chests. Likewise, their dresses both have extremely large bustles, emphasizing their lack of a female figure and awkwardness.¹⁷

Additionally, the stepsisters’ faces are boyish and considered unfeminine by most others. With scowling brows, large round eyes (and even rounder noses), plus a jowly lower jaw and neck, their faces are reminiscent of Disney’s Pinocchio or the Lost Boys of Peter Pan.¹⁸ As he watches the stepsisters awkwardly engaging his son, the King negatively shakes his head and hands vigorously, saying, “I give up. Even I could not expect the boy to...,” implying that both stepsisters are just too ugly to even contemplate his son marrying them. Even before they are allowed to try the glass slipper on, the Duke winces at the sight of them.¹⁹ Bell, Haas and Sells argue that that the two stepsisters cross the gender line completely, appearing male: “with their flat chests, huge bustles, and awkward curtsies, [the stepsisters] could as well be read as comic drag acts in this balletic fantasy.”²⁰ Clearly, their ugliness is really maleness costumed as female.

Both stepsisters, and Anastasia in particular, are further associated with masculinity via their large feet, which contributes to their extreme clumsiness, ensuring a safe distance from princess poise. Throughout the original film, the stepsisters’ feet are shown to be at least three times as large as Cinderella’s, sometimes taking up the entire screen.²¹ Whether lying in bed, curtsying to the prince, or being fitted for the slipper, the stepsisters’ feet are massive and fleshy. In contrast, the Grand Duke shows just how tiny the glass slipper is that fits Cinderella—it fits inside his palm with the toe of the shoe as small as his fingers. In the first Cinderella film, Anastasia tries on Cinderella’s tiny glass slipper, but manages only to get her big toe inside. In the third Cinderella film, her fleshy foot actually fits (much to the visible dismay of the Grand Duke), via Lady Tremaine’s evil use of the Fairy Godmother’s wand. Astonished and thrilled, Anastasia immediately undermines this feminine quality by displaying ungainliness: Anastasia crashes around the room, twirling the cat while screeching, “It fits!” Lady Tremaine even catches her daughter’s legs mid-cartwheel, allowing Anastasia’s dress to fall over her head, revealing her bloomers, before Anastasia collapses with her rump in the air. In effect, this scene ensures that preschool viewers understand Anastasia as the bumbling, awkward impostor that she is: although the shoe fits, she is not a true princess.

Further, the stepsisters exhibit a range of behaviors that mark them as masculine. When waiting to be introduced to the Prince, the girls are gawky in their presentation, Drizella also making the mistake of bowing, instead of curtsying to the Prince. The mistake makes her appear even more mannish, as she chooses a traditionally male form of presentation, bolstering the concept that she is not really a girl at all. Likewise, both stepsisters are clumsy and awkward, tripping over themselves and others constantly—Anastasia even humiliates herself by stepping on the Prince’s feet a record seven times when they dance in Cinderella III.²² The sisters also physically fight with each other, emphasizing their boyishness by participating in still more traditionally male behavior. Cinderella’s ever-present gracefulness contrasts their lack of femininity at every awkward sashay and piercing melody (in fact, Cinderella even giggles demurely about their lack of singing talent).

Finally, both stepsisters participate in a physical assault that solidifies a hidden masculinity. Cinderella is dressed for the ball in a pink gown that her animal friends helped transform, while she finished the many chores expected of her by her stepfamily. Realizing that the beautiful Cinderella will easily outshine her daughters, the music heightens ominously as Lady Tremaine helps her daughters notice that Cinderella’s dress incorporated an abandoned sash and necklace, recently discarded from their closets. In what is arguably a pseudo-rape scene,²³ Drizella first grabs and breaks Cinderella’s necklace, while Anastasia pulls at Cinderella’s dress. The stepsisters tear at the other girl’s clothing, ripping it from her body while Cinderella attempts to shield herself, covering her neck, face, and body with her hands. Walt Disney described what he intended with the scene as “they rip the hell out of her.... As they’re pulling the poor girl to pieces, the stepmother watches coldly with a little smile on her face.”²⁴ The dress is left as a one-shouldered rag, torn and ruined, and thus Cinderella cannot attend the ball. The stepsisters’ angry, cruel faces loom large in the screen during the attack as their monstrous behavior confirms their lack of femininity.

In contrast to her flat-chested boyish daughters, Disney’s Lady Tremaine manages to keep a vaguely female shape, but her facial features and behaviors mark her as both unfeminine as well as unmotherly, even to her own daughters. Her face is sharp-edged, with large eyes and a pointy chin, a clear divergence from Cinderella’s softened cheeks, nose, and lips. Her nose is crooked and large for her face, more reminiscent of 101 Dalmatians male villains Horace and Jasper, rather than typical Disney female features. Her over-plucked, arched eyebrows characterize her expressions as surprised and menacing, while the coloring of her face, which transforms from gray and tan to dark green depending on her mood and actions, reveals the evilness associated with her. “There was hardly a moment when the Stepmother was not running something through her mind, constantly scheming, which made her such a menace. Her piercing, penetrating eyes gave a look of intense concentration as she watched Cinderella.”²⁵ With these physical characteristics ala Disney, Lady Tremaine is distanced from femininity.

But it is her behavior to her daughters and stepdaughter that un-sexes her, as she dominates them thoroughly and harshly. While the tale always had her showing only cruelty to Cinderella, for no apparent reason, Disney’s version takes the original and escalates it. Lady Tremaine trips the footman carrying the glass slipper in the original film—even though her own daughters’ feet have already failed to fit it—so that Cinderella won’t even have the opportunity to escape her tyranny. In Cinderella III, intent on gaining wealth and power, Lady Tremaine changes her own daughter’s appearance into a copy of Cinderella via the magic wand so that Anastasia can marry the Prince. In perhaps the penultimate evil mother decision, she eventually attempts to kill Anastasia when the girl defies her mother.²⁶ In a film series where ultra-feminine Cinderella sings even while doing an immense amount of unpleasant, never-ending chores, this vindictive villain’s behavior pushes Lady Tremaine completely outside the realm of what Disney defines as feminine or motherly.²⁷

Ursula, the Sea Witch in The Little Mermaid, also retains some female qualities, but like Lady Tremaine, overwhelming communicates a transgendered presence. Ursula is a huge black and purple octopus, with styled white hair standing straight up, large eyes with deeply painted lids of blue and gray, and incredibly arched eyebrows. Her huge lips and nails are painted bright red, and she has a “beauty mark” mole on her right cheek. Her makeup, saggy jowls and large breasts create a vaguely female, voluptuous figure; however the exaggeration of those features, combined with her deep voice and overtly sexualized body movements suggests something much more masculinized. The Disney Villain remarks that “when we first see her in the film, we are appalled at her appearance, and realize that here is someone to be reckoned with.”²⁸ Of course, the reason “we are appalled” is not just because this villain is scary (after all, the villains are supposed to be scary!). Instead audience members love (and hate) Ursula because she crosses gender boundaries and becomes a comic pseudo-female villain.

Physically, the sea-witch is drawn as a queer predatory monster with a grotesque overwhelming body that occupies the whole screen.... Moreover, Ursula’s queerness subverts gender categories thus turning this female witch into an ironic positive figure; “a multiple cross-dresser,” who destabilises gender through her excess and theatricality.²⁹

When Ursula suggestively tells Ariel to use “body language” to attract Prince Eric, Ursula’s overweight body and tentacles, her deep voice, and the excessive, sexualized shimmies are reminiscent of a drag queen on stage, overly made up and singing deeply, appearing both female and male simultaneously.

Some critics have argued that Ursula was always supposed to be transgendered; in fact, Pinsky notes Ursula “was modeled on the modern drag queen Divine, according to the film’s directing animator, Reuben Acquino.”³⁰ Clearly with her white blond hair, overwhelming size, deepened voice, and accentuated eyebrows, the resemblance to Divine is uncanny.³¹ As well, many of her mannerisms and language choices also remind viewers of Divine. Complaining of her expulsion from King Triton’s kingdom, Ursula exposes fleshy, wiggling upper arms, large rounded breasts over an excessive stomach, along with her sagging jowels, then says, “And now look at me—wasted away to practically nothing—banished and exiled and practically starving.” The scene ends with her long black thick tentacles curling around the screen, until only her eyes are still apparent. Obviously this obese, overindulgent octopus is nowhere near malnourished, but the dramatic phrasing and movement coupled with her enormous size presents Ursula as overly theatrical and campy. Her exaggerated characteristics begin to read more and more like a flamboyant drag queen, than that of a real exile concerned with starvation.

In these ways, female villains become more and more separated from their dainty heroines, and their carefully-crafted creepiness depends on a distinct division from traditionally feminized characteristics (and the overtly heterosexual heroines mentioned earlier). As well, it’s understandable that Disney would want the villains to appear distinctly different—their audience members are as young as one or two years old, and Disney wants the youngsters to identify with the heroes and heroines, clamoring for Disney Princess products after seeing each film. They need them to understand easily who is good and who is not—and they do, as shown by my daughter’s comments and inclinations. But when Disney creates female villains primarily as transgendered characters—and transgendered characters as the primary evil characters in their storylines, then it crosses a line of attempting to show the polarity of good and evil to its youngsters, and becomes a disjointed misinformation telling young children that difference is not okay—in fact, that those who are transgendered are evil and to be avoided at all cost. These gross exaggerations and profiling create a disturbing message that is repeated ad nauseam to our youngest movie-watchers, who watch these films incessantly in our homes.

Similarly fascinating (and equally problematic) is the way in which Disney’s male villains are crafted to avoid heterosexual competition with the heroes. By feminizing the male villain, even bordering on overtly homosexual characterizations, The Lion King’s Scar, Aladdin’s Jafar, and Pocahontas’s Ratcliffe also become “mean ladies”—the stuff of which my daughter was wholly terrified. But while they may be evil, they definitely aren’t masculine.

While lion Scar looks only vaguely feminine in his appearance,³² his lack of physical prowess, his language choices, and the lack of a female mate mark his character as crossing into transgendered territory. Unlike the other two male lions (Mufasa and the adult Simba), Scar willingly admits he has little physical aptitude, connecting him strangely with Disney’s typical portrayal of female characters.³³ In one scene, Mufasa believes Scar has challenged him. Quickly denying being insolent to the much-fiercer Mufasa, Scar continues “Well, as far as brains go, I got the lion’s share. But, when it comes to brute strength ... I’m afraid I’m at the shallow end of the gene pool.” Sean Griffin states in Tinker Belles and Evil Queens: The Walt Disney Company from the Inside Out that Scar “makes up for his lack of strength with catty remarks and invidious plotting ... fairly swish[ing] ... in his attempt to usurp the throne.”³⁴ Scar uses his body and his tone, much like Ursula did, to carefully craft his transgenderism.

Later, another sarcastic reply again promotes the idea of Scar as transgendered. Noticing Scar’s continued lack of respect for the future ascension, Mufasa points out his son Simba will be king. Scar’s sardonic “I’ll practice my curtsy” reiterates his acerbic personality, but also adds a transgendered effect as it locates Scar again in the female role, curtsying instead of bowing to the future king. Like Drizella’s bow to the Prince, the gendered behavior reversal draws the attention of the viewer, categorizing Scar as gender-bending.³⁵

Scar also has no mate, even when he becomes King.³⁶ Unlike Mufasa, who mated with Sarabi, and Simba who is betrothed to Nala, Scar chooses no lioness as his queen, and thus, has no heir. He depends on Sarabi for her food gathering skills, even though they share no romantic interest. In fact, Scar’s main friends are outside the pride as he bullies and rules the hyena pack, marking him as living far outside the heterosexist lion culture.³⁷ Feminized and powerless, Scar cannot compete with his brother or nephew, even though he targets them as rivals. Just as when preschool viewers knew that Anastasia wasn’t a true princess (even though the shoe fit), they likewise realize that Scar isn’t the true king—his covert homosexual status helps them know he’s the bad guy.

Jafar, as the male villain in Aladdin, also crosses gender boundaries via appearance and behavior. Tall and thin, Jafar’s posture and bearing accentuates his difference from other male characters. As Li-Vollmer and LaPointe note, “Jafar ... wears a long gown with a nipped waist and sleeves that billow above the elbow and fit closely along the forearm to reveal his very slender lower arms and wrists. The pronounced ornamentation on the shoulders of his gown only direct more attention to the artifice of broad shoulders, not the true broad physique of a real man. All the other men, including the Sultan and other high-ranking characters, wear pants.”³⁸ Likewise, Jafar is the only male in the film to wear eye make-up, typically a female preoccupation. Again, Li-Vollmer and LaPointe observe “These cosmetic forms of gender transgression are most noticeable in the context of other male characters, whose facial features are not highlighted with animators’ cosmetics.”³⁹ Subtly differentiating male villains from the male heroes via makeup and costume, the bad guys are increasingly associated with femaleness. Li-Vollmer and LaPoint also observe that several male Disney villains “have ... tall, willowy frames with gracefully slender limbs and slim waists,”⁴⁰ which are strangely close to our original “mean ladies”—the evil queen in Snow White and Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty.⁴¹

Additionally, Jafar’s behavior is feminized. He is prissy and preening, unwilling to explore The Cave of Wonders for the magic lantern himself (unlike the heroes and heroines who eagerly head into adventurous escapades, even if they are dangerous). Sean Griffin also shares that lead animator Andreas Deja “admits to conceiving of the [Jafar] character as a gay man ‘to give him his theatrical quality, his elegance.’”⁴² Griffin continues, arguing it is easy to find the “’gay-tinged’ villainy in Disney ... by watching how Jafar arches his eyebrows in disdain, or in the sneer that curls Scar’s mouth as he endures the heterosexual patriarchy in which he finds himself.”⁴³

Like Scar, Jafar’s lack of interest in a female partner also suggests his transgenderism. Jafar shows no romantic or sexual interest in the beautiful Jasmine until his male sidekick, Iago, suggests marrying Jasmine in order to become Sultan; and when Jafar does force Jasmine to obey him (wishing the Genie to compel her to fall in love with him), the wish is not motivated by lust, but rather by his obsession for more power. Thus, Jafar’s only incentive to pursue a heterosexual relationship is to humiliate Jasmine and anger Aladdin.

However, the male villain in Pocahontas exhibits the most flamboyantly transgendered characteristics of all male Disney villains. Governor John Ratcliffe first appears on screen dressed in pink and purple clothes, sporting pigtails tied with pink bows,⁴⁴ and carrying a small lapdog. He puts his pinky finger up to drink his tea and dances effeminately, wearing a pink feathered boa. David Ogden Stiers affects a lisp in the voice for Ratcliffe, contributing to the stereotypical homosexual model. Ratcliffe’s associates are also affected by his transgendered depiction: his pug is shown with a bouffant hairdo in a bubble bath, while Ratcliffe’s male manservant, Wiggins, speaks with a high-pitched voice, cuts topiary into animal shapes, and desires to create gift baskets for the Indians.⁴⁵ Clearly, Ratcliffe is not the masculinized hero like John Smith, nor the serious Indian warrior, Koucom. Instead he is the unlikable villain, who is yet another “mean lady”: effete, if not outright homosexual.

By reinforcing the gender-bending identity of Ratcliffe in contrast to the heterosexual male characters, Ratcliffe becomes more unpleasant, more untouchable, and more remote. Sassafras Lowrey adds that Ratcliffe

does not partake in the physical work of “digging up Virginia” ... he dresse[s] flamboyantly and sings “I’ll glitter,” positioning him far outside of the norms of acceptable heterosexual masculinity. This is particularly true as men who are performing physical labor, thus displaying stereotypical heterosexual actions[,] surround him.⁴⁶

In fact, The Disney Villain states clearly that the animators “preferred to depict our examples of vileness through a strong design which eliminated realism and kept the audience from getting too close to the character.”⁴⁷ While this statement refers to the “safe distance” kept between the devil via his screen positioning, for example, in Fantasia, and viewers, it can also refer to the distance created via villains who appear different from the preschool viewer. In other words, child viewers understand that not only is Ratcliffe the villain, but he is the gay villain who is clearly different from almost every other male character in the film. By making him grossly flamboyant and disparate from all other men, while associating him with greed, violence, and ignorance, child viewers disassociate completely from his character, glad that he ends up in the brig on the way home. This breeds blatant prejudices among children viewers regarding any difference, but especially those which are associated with transgenderism.

Disney films are often regarded as harmless family entertainment—one in which members of all ages are welcome to enjoy the thrills and spills of their favorite animated character. As such, they have been overlooked until recently as content in need of analysis. The transgendered villains and their hyper-heterosexual heroes and heroines offer an interesting contrast to each other worth exploring more deeply, as do the problematic message about gender and difference that is being sent consistently to Disney’s child viewers.

While there are no Disney characters that actively announce their homosexuality or transgenderism, there is considerable evidence that Disney’s gender-bending characters are flourishing. Fascinatingly, some of these transgendered characters are among the most popular. Ursula and Scar consistently rank highly, not just among villains, but also among all Disney characters.⁴⁸ So then, if some of these transgendered characters still manage to gain a following, why is it significant to note this strangely fascinating pattern?

Obviously Disney is a powerhouse media outlet, watched by millions of children all over the world, and “the Disney Princess films comprise five of the six top revenue-generating Disney films of all time.”⁴⁹ It has been argued by H. A. Giroux that Disney films influence children as much as other cultural influences, such as school, church, and family, as their videos are repetitively watched via home DVDs.⁵⁰ Thus, the characterization of transgendered villains marks gender-bending characters (and eventually real people) as “evil” simply through the ongoing establishment of the pattern; i.e., if the “mean ladies” are consistently transgendered, it implies a larger statement is being made about what kind of people cross traditional gender boundaries in behavior and appearance—and that larger statement is one soaked in prejudice and disparagement.

Finally, creating only villains as transgendered people also suggests something about the consumerism of these films—i.e., that Disney willingly plays into stereotypes and fears about homophobia as well as accepts the crushing dominance of heterosexism within the larger community. In other words, if all of the villains are gay or have complicated gender-bending identities, it suggests that viewers find homosexuality or untraditional gender behavior and appearance unsettling, at best, and thus, that it’s okay to treat people who are different from the heterosexual norm as dangerous or disgusting because they will hurt you; after all, they are villains. At worst, viewers may feel they can be openly hostile to those who are different via transgendered appearance and behavior—and our preschool set is especially vulnerable to this message. As Li-Vollmer and LaPointe argue,

By drawing on information gleaned from their real-life encounters and their viewing of media images, children organize information about gender roles and gender performances into their schemata about what it is to be male or female (Fiske & Taylor, 1991); therefore, media viewing is both a source and a location of children’s gender schema development (Durkin, 1984). Children’s gender schemata, like all schemata, are less developed than those of adults, and are, therefore, more susceptible to influence from new sources and experiences, including media; as young people’s gender schemata develop over time, they become more resilient to change (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).⁵¹

So, when my daughter asks me at the grocery store if the cashier is a boy or a girl, because he has a ponytail, I have to realize that she’s responding to the abundance of traditional gendered stereotypes in our culture, including confusing signals from Disney films—and she’s right, most boys don’t wear ponytails; longer hair and ponytails can be characteristics that are associated with girls. However, since some boys wear ponytails (and some girls don short-clipped hair), it’s also important to explain that the gendered difference she’s noting on the outside is only part of the picture, and it may have little to do with behavior or intent. The ponytail-wearing man is not evil simply because he challenges a gendered stereotype. Thus, while the Disney villains are mean, cruel, and petty, often out to rule the world in despicable ways, it’s not because they are girly men or tomboys.

Notes

1. Litsa Renée Tanner et al explains this via the results of their study, “Marriage/children as the expected course for [Disney] couples [is] most often illustrated by the characters getting married shortly after meeting or falling in love (often in the very next scene), and at times having children soon afterward.” Litsa Renée Tanner, et al, “Images of Couples and Families in Disney Feature-Length Animated Films,” American Journal of Family Therapy 31.5 (2003): 360, Academic Search Premier.

2. Cruella De Vil in 101 Dalmatians also portrays many physical and verbal transgendered characteristics and is worthy of more analysis. Likewise, Sean Griffin argues that both the “vengeful Queen in Snow White and the evil sorceress Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty ... look like drag queens” due to their facial features and theatrical behavior. Sean Griffin, Tinker Belles and Evil Queens: The Walt Disney Company from the Inside Out (New York University Press: New York, 2000), 73.

3. Li-Vollmer, Meredith and LaPointe, Mark E., “Gender Transgression and Villainy in Animated Film,” Popular Communication 1: 2 (2003): 90.

4. Ibid., 91.

5. Ollie Johnston and Frank Thomas. The Disney Villain (Hyperion: New York, 1993), 15.

6. Ibid., 11.

7. Ibid.

8. Griffin, Tinker Belles and Evil Queens, 75.

9. Only Snow White, the very first princess, is known for a dress that does not emphasize her body, although she still has a lithe figure. This can be most clearly associated with the time of that picture’s release (1937).

10. Mark I. Pinsky, The Gospel According to Disney: Faith, Trust, and Pixie Dust (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 165.

11. Debra Bradley, “Disney Gives Pocahontas Sexiest Cartoon Image Ever,” Dallas Morning News, The Free-Lance Star, June 23, 1995, http://news.google.com/newspapersnid=1298&dat=19950623&id=uy0zAAAAIBAJ &sjid=wQcGAAAAIBAJ&pg=3630,4507147

12. In 78.3% of Disney films, “it took a matter of minutes for couples to fall in love.” Litsa Renée Tanner, et al, “Images of Couples and Families in Disney Feature-Length Animated Films,” 364.

13. England and Descartes note in their study, “While the princes have less screen time overall, they perform a relatively high number of rescues, suggesting that princes see more action comparatively.” Dawn England and Lara Descartes, “Gender Role Portrayal and the Disney Princesses,” University of Connecticut, April 19, 2008, Honors Thesis Poster Presentation.

14. Only Pocahontas does not marry the lead male, which notably would have contradicted history to have her do so.

15. While outside the realm of this essay, voice inflection and language choices for all the villains offer interesting material for transgendered analysis too.

16. Interestingly, the stepsisters are not described as ugly in the Grimms’ version, instead as “beautiful, with fair faces, but evil and dark hearts.” D. L. Ashliman, “Cinderella,” Grimm Brothers’ Home Page, 2009, Original by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, 1857, http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm021.html.

17. Interestingly, in Cinderella II, Anastasia’s figure changes in significant ways: her waist is defined, showing a noticeable difference between the size of her chest and waist. This change is likely connected to Anastasia’s more prominent role in Cinderella II, and as someone who, with Cinderella’s help, asserts herself against her own (evil) mother.

18. Again, in Cinderella II, Anastasia’s appearance also changes—her long hair is brushed out in soft curls (versus the ringlet sausages of the first film), her face is more slender, and her nose is less bulbous. These modifications—along with her larger role of securing her own heterosexual relationship with the baker’s son, reinforce an alignment of feminine features with heterosexuality and marital goals.

19. In contrast, the Duke smiles broadly when he views Cinderella’s small legs and feet through his monocle as she runs down the stairs after being trapped in her room.

20. E. Bell, L. Haas, and L. Sells, From Mouse to Mermaid: The Politics of Film, Gender, and Culture (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), 112.

21. Similarly, Beauty and the Beast’s Gaston emphasizes his hyper-masculinity via similar large-screen shots of his feet.

22. Once again, this too changes in Cinderella II, where Anastasia dances gracefully around her room with her cat, Lucifer.

23. Rape is not a male trait obviously, but it is much more commonly associated with male perpetrators than female. In fact, per RAINN’s website, most rape statistics in the United States focus on male attacker–female victim implicitly. Finding statistics on female perpetrators is quite challenging.

24. Johnson and Thomas, The Disney Villain, 100.

25. Ibid., 99.

26. In Cinderella II, Lady Tremaine abandons Anastasia when the girl defies her to be with the baker’s son (who is absent in Cinderella III).

27. Lady Tremaine’s behavior is consistent with Grimms’ description of her, where she suggests to both her daughters to cut off their toe or heel to fit the slipper—and supplies the knife for the deed.

28. Johnson and Thomas, The Disney Villain, 186–191.

29. Libe Garcia Zarranz, “Diswomen Strike Back? The Evolution of Disney’s Femmes in the 1990s,” Atenea, (2007): 57, Academic Search Premier.

30. Pinsky, From Mouse to Mermaid: The Gospel According to Disney, 140.

31. Interestingly, when Ursula becomes Vanessa, the young woman that looks like Ariel, she sings: “What a lovely little bride I’ll make / my dear, I look divine...,” perhaps a nod to Ursula’s model.

32. Li-Vollmer and LaPointe suggest that Scar’s “slim face and pointed chin” give his face a more “delicate” face than Mufasa or Simba. Li-Vollmer and LaPointe, “Gender Transgression and Villainy in Animated Film,” 97.

33. England and Descartes’s study of Disney films indicated that physical strength was a characteristic least likely to be observed in the main female leads. England and Descartes, “Gender Role Portrayal and the Disney Princesses.”

34. Griffin. Tinker Belles and Evil Queens, 211.

35. A later comment by Scar to Simba that he “has no idea” just how “weird” Scar is stretches into a latent “queer” reference as well. See Griffin’s text for more explicit analysis.

36. In later straight-to-DVD sequels and Broadway productions, Scar’s female mate issues are more thoroughly investigated as he is grouped with several lionesses and even attempts to seduce Nala unsuccessfully.

37. Griffin goes further with this point, noting that Scar is also associated with Nazism and drought, two disturbing connections at best, but especially with his transgendered characteristics. Griffin, Tinker Belles and Evil Queens, 212.

38. Li-Vollmer and LaPointe, “Gender Transgression and Villainy in Animated Film,” 99–100.

39. Ibid., 98.

40. Ibid., 98.

41. Two directors of animation, Ron Clements and John Musker, even told Andreas Deja, the lead animator of Jafar, to “look at Maleficent” in regards to Jafar’s movement. Johnson and Thomas, The Disney Villain, 213.

42. Griffin. Tinker Belles and Evil Queens, 141.

43. Ibid., 142.

44. While the hairstyle is of the time period, no other male character in the film wears his hair like it, especially not with pink ribbons.

45. Lowrey also suggests that Wiggins and Ratcliffe are implied homosexual lovers. Sassafras Lowrey, “I’ll Glitter,” Fuchsia Focus: A Queer Critique of the Media, 10 July 2007, http://fuchsiafocus.blogspot.com/2007/07/ill-glitter.html

46. Lowrey, “I’ll Glitter.”

47. Johnson and Thomas, The Disney Villain, 18.

48. Disney Villains, 2010, http://www.disneyvillains.net/

49. Karen E. Wohlwend, “Damsels in Discourse: Girls Consuming and Producing Identity Texts Through Disney Princess Play,” Reading Research Quarterly 44.1 (Jan–March 2009): 57 (27). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale.

50. Giroux, H. A. “Animating Youth: The Disneyfication of Children’s Culture,” Socialist Review: 23–55. Quoted in Lauren Dundes, “Disney’s Modern Heroine Pocahontas: Revealing Age-Old Gender Stereotypes and Role Discontinuity Under a Façade of Liberation,” Social Science Journal 38 (2001): 353–365. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.

51. Li-Vollmer and LaPointe, “Gender Transgression and Villainy in Animated Film,” 93.

Bibliography

Ashliman, D. L., “Cinderella.” Grimm Brothers’ Home Page. 2009. Original by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, 1857. http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm021.html.

Bell, E., Haas, L., and Sells, L. “Introduction: Walt’s in the Movies.” From Mouse to Mermaid: The Politics of Film, Gender, and Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995, 1–20.

Bradley, Debra. “Disney Gives Pocahontas Sexiest Cartoon Image Ever.” Dallas Morning News, The Free-Lance Star, June 23, 1995, http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19950623&id=uy0zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wQcGAAAAIBAJ&pg=3630,4507147

Disney Villains. 2010. http://www.disneyvillains.net/

Dundes, Lauren, and Alan Dundes. “Young Hero Simba Defeats Old Villain Scar: Oedipus Wrecks the Lyin’ King.” Social Science Journal 43.3 (2006): 479–485. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.

England, Dawn, and Lara Descartes. “Gender Role Portrayal and the Disney Princesses.” University of Connecticut. April 19, 2008. Honors Thesis Poster Presentation. 12 January 2010. http://www.familystudies.uconn.edu/undergraduate/honors/posters/Dawn%20England%20poster.pdf

Giroux, H. A. “Animating Youth: The Disneyfication of Children’s Culture.” Socialist Review: 23–55. Quoted in Lauren Dundes, “Disney’s Modern Heroine Pocahontas: Revealing Age-Old Gender Stereotypes and Role Discontinuity Under a Façade of Liberation.” Social Science Journal 38 (2001): 353–365. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.

Griffin, Sean. Tinker Belles and Evil Queens. Tinker Belles and Evil Queens: The Walt Disney Company from the Inside Out. New York University Press: New York. 2000.

Hill, Jim. Jim Hill Media, “Why (For) Pat Carroll Wasn’t Actually Disney’s First Choice to Voice Ursula in ‘The Little Mermaid,’” 15 June 2007. http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2007/06/15/why-for-pat-carroll-wasn-t-actually-disney-s-first-choice-to-voice-ursula-in-the-little-mermaid.aspx

Johnston, Ollie, and Frank Thomas. The Disney Villain. Hyperion: New York. 1993.

Li-Vollmer, Meredith and LaPointe, Mark E. “Gender Transgression and Villainy in Animated Film.” Popular Communication 1: 2 (2003), 89–109.

Lowrey, Sassafras. “I’ll Glitter.” Fuchsia Focus: A Queer Critique of the Media. 10 July 2007 http://fuchsiafocus.blogspot.com/2007/07/ill-glitter.html

PFLAG: Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. “About Our Transgendered Children.” Out of the Closet Into Our Hearts. February 25, 2007. http://www.critpath.org/pflag-talk/tgkidfaq.htm

Pinsky, Mark I. The Gospel According to Disney: Faith, Trust, and Pixie Dust. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

RAINN: Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. “Statistics.” 2009. http://www.rainn.org/statistics

Tanner, Litsa Renée, et al. “Images of Couples and Families in Disney Feature-Length Animated Films.” American Journal of Family Therapy 31.5 (2003): 355. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.

Towbin, Mia Adessa, et al. “Images of Gender, Race, Age, and Sexual Orientation in Disney Feature-Length Animated Films.” Journal of Feminist Family Therapy 15.4 (2003): 19–44. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.

“Voicing ‘Scar’ in The Lion King—Jeremy Irons.” June 05, 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apJxdRYI32Y

Willman, Chris. “You Can’t Hide His Lion Eyes.” Originally in Los Angeles Times. Reprinted in Irons Ink: Press Archive. 15 May 1994. http://www.jeremy-irons.com/press/archive/18.html

Zarranz, Libe Garcia. “Diswomen Strike Back? The Evolution of Disney’s Femmes in the 1990s.” Atenea (2007) 55–67: Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.