Reading diary consisted of 10

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com The

Pergamon SCIENCE DIRECTSCI

The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 479-485

Young hero Simba defeats old villain Scar:

Oedipus wrecks the Lyin' King

Lauren Dundes a,b,*, Alan Dundes l

aDepartment of Sociology, McDaniel College, 2 College Hill, Westminster, MD 21157, United States

b Department ofAnthropology, University of California, Berkeley, United States

Abstract

Prior studies of Disney's animated film The Lion King focus on its flattering portrayal of a patriarchical

society in which a segment of residents (hyenas) are marginalized. These analyses, however, neglect

Oedipal themes and the respectful portrayal of parents that may be key to the film's great popularity.

1. Introduction

As film increasingly replaces literature as the shared fantasy material of the world's popula-

tions, it is to be expected that the vast energies previously devoted to literary criticism will be

redirected into film criticism. The variety of interpretations of any one film might constitute a

sign of that film's capacity to inspire a diversity of responses among viewers. We should like

to illustrate such diversity by considering some of the published reactions to Disney's popular

animated film The Lion King (1994) that has been called Disney's most successful product

(Kramer, 2000).

We shall assume that readers of this essay have seen the film and we will therefore not

attempt to recapitulate the entire plot. The film revolves around how a male lion cub, Simba,

comes to fulfill his expected role as the Lion King, following the murder of his father, Mufasa.

Mufasa is killed as a result of a murderous plot perpetrated by his brother, Simba's Uncle, Scar,

who aided by malevolent hyenas, tries to eliminate both father and son in order to seize power.

A number of critiques of the film have suggested that it is sexist, classist, and/or racist.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 410 857 2534; fax: +1 410 386 4671.

E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Dundes).

11 The late Alan Dundes was a professor of Folklore in the Department of Anthropology at the University of

California, Berkeley, United States.

As a result of a purported patent patriarchal bias, the film depicts a society in which all of

the power is in the hands of males where one male king is succeeded by another. The female

role is strictly one of subservience, principally to give birth to the next male heir (Gutierrez,

2000). Several authors also decry a society in which a social position disadvantageous to

the masses is unquestioningly accepted. Excepting the villains, the characters convey that

the privilege of the relatively few elite lions is necessary, natural and desirable. There is no

sense of injustice surrounding the hyenas' exclusion from the Pride Lands (compared by one

author to Jewish ghettoes in Nazi-occupied Poland, apartheid in South Africa, "Jim Crow"

laws in the South, and impoverished Native Americans on reservations (Rockier, 2004)).

Instead, the hyenas' marginalization is warranted, as they are undeserving and destructive

encroachers in the kingdom that lions alone should control (Morton, 1996; Rockler, 2004).

Some critics also see a fascistic component "Might makes right" which it is suggested might

partially explain the film's great popularity in Germany (Kramer, 2000, p. 48; Roth, 1996).

When Scar uses oratory to rally his hyena forces, there is a dramatic scene of hordes of

goose-stepping hyenas marching in formation, a scene that is strikingly reminiscent of Nazi

propaganda films.

Perhaps the most consistent critique of the film involves race and ethnicity. According to

such critics, the royal lion's fiefdom which lies in the sun is distinct from the outer "border"

areas in the dark, inhabited by hungry hyenas who have designs to take over the sunlit kingdom.

To underscore the symbolism of color, the lions are light colored (except for the lion villain,

Scar) while the hyenas are animated as darker colored characters (Gutierrez, 2000; Martin-

Rodriguez, 2000). At the time the film was produced, there was a sustained attempt on the part

of the state of California and the federal border patrol to keep immigrants from Mexico and

Central America from illegally crossing the border into the United States in an effort to share

the bounty of the "good life" available there (e.g., Propositions 187,209 and 227 in California:

Elahi, 2001; Gutierrez, 2000). This zeitgeist offers a different perspective of Mufasa's explicit

identification of the hyenas' shadowy territory as beyond the borders of the Pride Land and his

swift reaction to and concern about a border patroller's military salute and a news report that the

hyenas have illegally crossed the border (in their search for better living conditions) (Martin-

Rodriguez, 2000). The minority status of the hyenas was supposedly signaled by the fact that

one of the voices of these creatures was that of Cheech, a Latino actor whose accent in English

betrayed his ethnic origins (corroborated by a scene in which he utters a Spanish phrase, "Que

pasa?" to emphasize the hyenas' status as foreigners who have illegally crossed the border

[Martin-Rodriguez, 2000]). When the hyena henchmen chase Simba out into the desert, their

pursuit is ended when they encounter a wall of sharp thorns that has a marked similarity to the

concertina wire encircling prison walls. This scene is reminiscent of the existence of borders

designed to impede the movement of unwanted immigrants.

An alternative view of the racial significance of the hyenas concerns the casting of African

American comedian-actress Whoopi Goldberg as the voice of one of the hyenas. Her intermit-

tent black dialect has resulted in some critics likening Simba's first run-in with the hyenas to

suburbanites mistakenly exiting into a dangerous inner city area, rather than a foray across the

border (into Mexico) as delineated above (e.g., Giroux, 2001). Scar's offerings of meat to win

the loyalty of these pseudo gang members has been compared to a welfare state that leads to the

spread of inner city decay, including an environment in which lionesses are harassed by lazy,

480 L. Dundes, A. Dundes / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 479-485

nonworking, parasitic hyenas. The spread of blight has been said to allude to "the presumed

inability of non-Whites to run their own states" (Gutierrez, 2000, p. 27) and justification for

White resentment of minority encroachment into "their" domain (Elahi, 2001).

When order is restored, the unassimilable hyenas are once again relegated to their bar-

ren wasteland (Gooding-Williams, 1995; Roth, 1996) and other animals are happy in their

subservient place (including Rafiki, who is regarded as a so-called Uncle Tom due to his ser-

vice to those in power [Gooding-Williams, 1995; Morton, 1996]). Apt retribution ensues for

those who question the established regime and privilege of those who subjugate them, teach-

ing children that submitting to authority brings stability, prosperity and happiness (Gutierrez,

2000) that occurs following massive deportation of those sponging off the hard work of others

(Martin-Rodriguez, 2000).

Other critics accused the filmmakers of gay-bashing, suggesting that the villain Scar was

effeminate (Morton, 1996, p. 316). The effete English accent of Jeremy Irons coupled with

remarks about the need to "practice my curtsy" are cited in support of this reading. Roth (1996)

contends that the portrayal of Scar is a continuation of a series of gay villains in Disney films

(i.e., drag-queen like Ursula in The Little Mermaid, the self-adulating and preening characters

of both Gaston in Beauty and the Beast and the prince in Shrek 1, the prissy Jafar in Aladdin,

and an effeminate Prince Charming in Shrek 2).

A contrasting view of the gay relationships, however, may also be present in The Lion King.

When Simba is tricked by Scar into renouncing his regal responsibilities and running away,

he joins a minimal all-male fraternity consisting of a manipulative, wisecracking meercat,

Timon and an oafish, gas-passing warthog, Pumbaa. This pair has been referred to as having

an alternative lifestyle, "living as a couple to the exclusion of females of their own species"

(Roth, 1996, p. 20). Nathan Lane, the voice of Timon, has insisted in interviews that "Timon

and Pumbaa were not just homosocial but gay; the first gay couple in a Disney cartoon"

(Buhlei, 2003, p. 125). Simba is adopted by the couple (corresponding to foster parents in

the standard hero pattern discussed later on) and he indulges in a carefree life (characterized

by the hakuna mnatata mentality of "no worries"). He is cajoled into giving up meat eating

in favor of swallowing insects which are said to be "slimy yet satisfying." He also learns to

belch, a parallel to Pumbaa's flatulence, behavior that is sanctioned, if not encouraged, in male

fraternities (Elahi, 2001). This detail is reminiscent of male fraternity hazing in which initiates

are compelled to ingest goldfish and/or substances resembling worms. This experience with

Timon and Pumbaa constitutes a rite of passage for Simba during which time he becomes an

adult.

Other scholars charge the Disney organization with borrowing without acknowledgement

from a Japanese animated filmmaker's work, namely Osamu Tezuka's "Jungle Emperor"

(Kuwahara, 1997; Ricker, 1996, p. 48). One of the most anomalous interpretations of the

film suggests that the plot is a thinly disguised account of the power struggle within the Disney

organization itself for control of the Disney empire. Walt Disney, the founding father, is Mufasa

while contenders for the CEO position, the modem surrogates for Disney, are supposedly the

other principal characters in the film (Kramer, 2000). The plausibility of these competing inter-

pretations of the film varies from likely to unlikely, depending upon the political bias of the

viewer. In our opinion (probably not without some bias on our part), the main underlying appeal

of the film is either missed or downplayed by these sometimes ingeniously argued analyses.

481 L. Dundes, A. Dundes iThe Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 479-485

There are two other interpretations that we feel are closer to the mark. Yet for both of these

other readings, authors only touch on the implications, failing to fully appreciate the symbolic

import of their insights. One of these analyses suggests that the plot of the Lion King borrows

from the standard Indo-European hero pattern (Gavin, 1996). The hero is either banished

from his homeland or lives in exile voluntarily, is raised by foster parents or parent surrogates

(as mentioned above) before finally answering the hero's call to return home to conquer the

villain and make claim to his rightful position as heir to the throne. The second interpretation

recognizes the borrowing from Shakespeare's classic Hamlet. One essay entitled "The Lion

King and Hamlet: A Homecoming for the Exiled Child" employs both these interpretations

(Gavin, 1996), but some essays feature only the borrowing from Hamlet (Buhler, 2003). There

are other allusions to Shakespeare's works. The name of the meercat is Timon and the villain

Scar has green eyes. He is jealous of his brother Mufasa and nephew Simba. The green eyes

suggest the line in Othello referring to jealousy as "the green-eyed monster" (Othello Act 3,

scene 3, line 165).

What these critics have overlooked is that both the Indo-European hero pattern and Hamlet

are clear-cut Oedipal plots. This is not a new idea. In 1909, Otto Rank, an early Freudian who

specialized in mythology, published his path-breaking Myth of the Birth of the Hero in which

he demonstrated the remarkable biographical similarity in the lives of various heroes ranging

from classical Greek legends to medieval heroic sagas. Freud was so pleased with his pupil's

study of the hero pattern that he wrote a substantial portion of the "interpretation" of the pattern

that Rank (1959, pp. 69-71) gratefully incorporated into his monograph. According to Rank's

analysis, "the child simply gets rid of the father which is projection represented in the narrative

by the father endeavoring to eliminate the son (Rank, 1959, p. 72)."

In the Lion King, it is the villainous father's brother Scar who plots to eliminate Mufasa,

but he manages to convince Simba that it was he (Simba) who was responsible for Mufasa's

death in the stampede. So as a result, it is the son Simba who feels guilt for his father's death.

Psychologically speaking, it is common in the case of the death of a parent, for the same-

sex child to feel guilt because according to Oedipal theory, he or she at some point wished

that the same-sex parent would die or disappear. So a girl wishes her mother would die or

disappear so that she could have her beloved daddy to herself and a boy wishes the same for

his father so that he can have mommy's undivided attention and affection. The notion of the

"omnipotence of thought" (wishing for something makes it happen) explains why a child feels

guilt for a death that he or she had nothing to do with in reality. Another early Freudian, Ernest

Jones, the eventual biographer of Freud, wrote an extended analysis of Shakespeare's Hamlet

demonstrating its clear Oedipal underpinnings. The essay entitled "The Oedipus complex as

an explanation of Hamlet's mystery" was first published in 1910 in the American Journal of

Psychology and later appeared in book form (Jones, 1954). Hamlet bitterly resents his paternal

uncle's murder of his father and marriage to his mother. Although there are many striking

parallels to Hamlet in the Lion King, the ghost of Hamlet's father who informs Hamlet of his

uncle's treachery is matched by Mufasa's image appearing to a confused and conflicted Simba

to tell him to assume the throne, which would require the ousting of Uncle Scar. Given Scar's

effeminacy, it is not clear that he has married Simba's mother, but as the ruler of a pride of lions,

he has nominal possession of (equivalent to sexual dominion over) all the lionesses including

Simba's mother. The Lion King differs radically from Hamlet inasmuch as Simba does take

482 L. Dundes, A. Dundes /The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 479-485

revenge on the lying villain. Unlike Hamlet who is unable to resolve the Oedipal conflict to

the point of killing the villain, Simba succeeds, though he does not have to actually kill Scar

himself. Scar is killed by his hyena henchmen whom he has foolishly maligned. So what we

have in The Lion King is Hamlet with a happy ending! The movie opens with a rising sun and

it ends with a son who has risen.

One of the strongest bits of evidence for an Oedipal reading of the Lion King are the words

of Simba's mother when they are reunited for the first time since Simba's self-imposed exile.

While Simba was away, he grew from a little playful cub into a serious adult male, looking very

much like his father Mufasa. When he gazes into a pond, his reflection metamorphosizes into the

image of his father, indicating that he is ready to replace his father. So much does he resemble

his father that upon his return, his mother addresses him as Mufasa, believing for a moment that

Mufasa has returned from the dead. The fact that she addresses her son by her husband's name

clearly has Oedipal implications. To our knowledge, no critic has noticed this important detail.

The son, in other words, has succeeded completely in replacing his father vis-h-vis his mother.

In addition, Simba's motivation to finally engage Scar in combat is precipitated by his seeing

Scar strike his mother. An enraged Simba assumes the role of protector formerly filled by his

father. Relevant here is a report that in the original story line, Scar makes an explicit attempt

to woo Simba's mother, Sarabi, but unlike in Hamlet, the mother rejects the father's brother's

advance. The Disney brain trust cut this scene each time it was proposed on the grounds that "it

would be just 'too much' for the kiddies" (a tacit acknowledgement of the sexual component

of the Oedipus scenario) (Tiemann, 2004, p. 33). When Scar chastises Sarabi (Simba's mother)

for not providing food, the implication is that she, more than any of the other lionesses, has

been obliged to fulfill Scar's needs. After the battle when Simba emerges victorious, he first

nuzzles his mother before his mate Nala. In Oedipal psychology, a man's wife is a mother

substitute.

We believe that it is precisely this basic Oedipal plot that accounts for the remarkable popu-

larity of the Lion King. We do not deny the possible fascistic and patriarchal aspects of the plot

pointed out by previous critics. Nor do we reject the suggestions that the emphasis on borders

keeping undesirable animals away from the protected kingdom may resonate with antiimmi-

grant and antiminority prejudices found among some middle class White property-owners,

but we very much question whether these themes alone would account for the extraordinary

box-office appeal of the film which was a major money-maker for the Disney organization.

Whether it is a girl getting rid of a wicked step-mother (as in Snow White or Cinderella) or

resolving an Electral complex with her father (as in Mulan or The Little Mermaid [Dundes &

Dundes, 2000]) or a boy conquering an adult male father figure, the family romance continues

to resonate even if the characters are portrayed as anthropomorphic animals and the venue is

made exotic by placing the story in Africa. The basic Oedipal plot persists but with some new

variations and twists.

2. International appeal

The Lion King's international success also may be because of its favorable depiction of

parents, a departure from many prior Disney films. In earlier Disney movies of the 1950s such

483 48 Dundes, A. Dundes / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 479-485

as Jungle Book and Peter Pan, the father is a menacing authoritarian who is also buffoonish.

This portrayal is likely in response to the norm at that time of austere, disciplinarian fathers.

Showing that underneath the formality and strictness lay paternal incompetence gave the child

character, whom child viewers identified with, an opportunity to reaffirm the child's secret sense

of superiority over the parent. According to Martha Wolfenstein (1978), this so-called cognitive

conceit emerges when children realize that their parents are not omniscient and, consistent

with black and white thinking, therefore conclude that adults, including their parents, are

stupid.

As mothers became more likely to be the disciplinarians of the American family, fathers

became less threatening, though no less bumbling. So in a number of later Disney movies, e.g.,

Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, the father becomes more of a sweet and inept character,

who physically actually resembles a teddy bear. Both Belle (Beauty and the Beast) and Jasmine

(Aladdin) tower over their fathers as they offer encouragement and adult insights in what is

an obvious role reversal, with the child fulfilling the parental role and the parent being easily

misledby the villains. The popularHomeAlone movie series is the epitome of this phenomenon:

parents mistakenly abandon their child at home when they go on vacation, leaving him to outwit

equally unintelligent adult burglars.

Given the greaterrespect accorded to one's elders outside of theJUnited States, these portray-

als of father figures may be deemed insulting, especially when such easily fooled characters are

humiliated as well. For example, in Beauty and the Beast, when Belle's father becomes wedged

in a barrel and must extricate himself, his pants fall down, revealing colorful underwear. In

Aladdin, Jasmine's father literally plays with toys (a pyramid of little toy animals).

In the Lion King, however, Mufasais a strong, noble figure. He commands the respect of even

those who resent his authority, as indicated by the hyena Shenzi's reaction to even the mention

of his name. Although Simba eventually proves himself superior to his father by vanquishing

their mutual nemesis, Scar, there is no humiliation of Mufasa. Rather than the child proving

his superiority over the parent, Simba proves to be equal to or worthy of his father's former

position. Not only is this element consistent with an Oedipal theme, but it also makes for a

story that is less likely to alienate viewers outside the youth-oriented culture of the United

States.

The various interpretations of The Lion King are not mutually exclusive. Our suggestion

of the importance of the Oedipal theme in no way argues against reading the film in terms of

its application to race/gender issues. However, critics who limit their analysis to such issues,

in our opinion, are mistakenly overlooking the importance of this modem rendering of a

classical Oedipal story. Children, and even parents for that matter, may or may not immediately

perceive the possible xenophobic nuances, but they will almost certainly at some level, albeit

unconsciously, relate to a son's struggle to take his father's place.

References

Bubler, S. M. (2003). Shakespeare and Company: The Lion King and the Disneyfication of Hamlet. In B. Ayres

(Ed.), The empewvr's old groove: Decolonizing Disney's Magic Kingdom (pp. 117-129). New York: Peter Lang.

Dundes, L., & Dundes, A. (2000). The trident and the fork: Disney's 'The Little Mermaid' as a male construction

of an Electral fantasy. Psychoanalytic Studies, 2, 117-130.

484 L. Dundes, A. Dundes / The Social Science Journal 43 (2006) 479-485

Elahi, B. (2001). Pridelands: TheLion King, proposition 187, andwhite resentment. Arizona Quarterly, 57,121-152.

Gavin, R. (1996). The Lion King and Handet: A homecoming for the exiled child. English Journal, 85,55-57.

Giroux, H. A. (2001). The mouse that roared. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing.

Gooding-Williams, R. (1995). Disney in Africa and the inner city: On race and space in The Lion King. Social

Identities, ], 373-379.

Gutierrez, G. (2000). Deconstructing Disney: Chicano/a children and critical race theory. Aztlan: A Journal of

Chicano Studies, 25, 7-46.

Jones, E. (1954). Hamlet and Oedipus. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.

Kramer, P. (2000). Entering the Magic Kingdom: The Walt Disney Company. The Lion King and the limitations of

criticism. Film Studies, 2, 44-50.

Kuwahara, H. (1997). Japanese culture and popular consciousness: Disney's The Lion King vs. Tezuka's Jungle

Emperor. Journal of Popular Culture, 31, 37-48.

Martin-Rodriguez, M. M. (2000). Hyenas in the pride lands: Latinos/as and immigration in Disney's The Lion King.

Aztlan, 25, 47-66.

Morton, J. (1996). Simba's revolution: Revisiting history and class in The Lion King. Social Identities, 2, 311-317.

Rank, 0. (1959). The myth of the birth of the hero and other writings. New York: Vintage Books.

Ricker, A. (1996). The Lion King animated storybook: A case study of aesthetic and economic power. CriticalArts,

10, 41-59.

Rockler, N. R_ (2004). Race, hierarchy, and hyenaphobia in the Lion King. In R. A. Lind (Ed.), Race/gender/media

(pp. 177-191). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

Roth, M. (1996). The Lion King: A short history of Disney-fascism. Jump Cut, 40, 1520.

Tiemann, B. (2004). The Lion King: Frequently asked questions list. http://www.lionking.org/faq. Retrieved on

July 15, 2004.

Wolfenstein, M. (1978). Children's humor: A psychological analysis. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University

Press.

485

wrecks the Lyin' King

SOURCE: Soc Sci J 43 no3 2006

WN: 0600300645017

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it

is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in

violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:

http://www.elsevier.com/