provocative dandy porn or a children's movie?

[VIIStar]

My roommate emailed me this article:

Link

Where JHM is making a 3D animated film for disney based on two things, the story of Rapunzel and a painting by Jean-Honoré Fragonard called 'The Swing':

<img src="http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/images/u ... -swing.jpg">

If anyone is familiar with this work, you know it's not just a girl on a swing. It was popular in its time because it was scandalous. The symbolism is erotic and suggestive, from the hushed cherub, the man's view up her skirt, the priest pushing her on the swing, and there’s something with the shape of then man’s hat in the bushes, and her shoe...

Anyway although I understand that perhaps a child could look at it and just see a frilly pink dress, the intent is prevalent, and therefore vicariously carried into the texture of the movie (which even goes so far as to insert a cameo of sorts with Rapunzel on a swing, directly referencing the painting, and not just the Rococo style)

I cannot doubt that the men in charge of making the movie are aware of the painting and it's meaning, and also knowing that there are many images from the Rococo period to chose from in the same style (though lacking such content), I wonder why they decided to choose The Swing. They could have even chosen from Fragonard's later paintings which were family based and even later, religious, if they wanted to keep with the same artist.

I can see how erotic and provocative symbolism has changed over the last few hundred years, but I guess I see it as the <i>intent</i> being the same. And being marketed to little girls; find it all the more disturbing.

I'm probably the only one…?

Any thoughts?

[Nervous Spy]

Frankly, I'm not sure if there's anything more behind it than a fascination with a certain style. As you've pointed out, the "suggestive" symbolic content wouldn't be readily apparent to a modern audience to begin with, but, what's more, all those elements (man, cherub, vicar, etc.) are absent from the Disney version - only the girl on the swing is left.

So, to see any more that just a girl on a swing, a member of the audience would need to catch on to the reference, know the original picture and know about the context it originally held...that'll probably be a very small percentage.

[VIIStar]

True, not many people will connect the dots back to the intent of the original image. I guess it just comes off to me as a Disney subliminal sex message, like in lion king and the little mermaid.

[Nervous Spy]

I guess it just comes off to me as a Disney subliminal sex message, like in lion king and the little mermaid.

I must admit that I've never given much credence to those claims. I really think that Disney desperately tries to be as "clean" as possible, and that might be part of the problem - the total absence of any sexual content of any degree creates a vacuum, which is inevitably filled by the audience via psychological osmosis.

[Yeahduff]

Nothing to see here.

[Yeahduff]

Forum acting wonky.

[VIIStar]

The next time I turn the old computer on to scan I’ll snag you a copy of the old little mermaid vhs cover and you can decide for yourself... as for the sex in the wind in lion king, that one I've seen. (most of the Disney tapes I have are first run, so they didn't have a chance to change anything, Abu saying oh shit in the cave was pretty funny)

As for the absence of sexual content, I guess it's a discussion about audience and what's appropriate for what age that they're targeting. Though between the mainstream media and puritans, there really isn't a 'healthy' concept of sexuality, and I don't see disney running to fill that void...

They could have probably fixed their own problems by treating their artists better, perhaps.

[RPin]

Nothing to see here.

Well... There is a nice painting to see. It's very hard to picture anyone feeling outraged by it with the first Marquis de Sade writings being from the exact same period.

[VIIStar]

Sorry, I think I misunderstood you; the other sexual images in said movies were done by employees, and were not planned. I figured that the people making the big decisions knew about the image's history so were doing it themselves.

[VIIStar]

Nothing to see here.

Well... There is a nice painting to see. It's very hard to picture anyone feeling outraged by it with the first Marquis de Sade writings being from the exact same period.

Well, I’m not outraged, just curious, because the image that they chose to base a children's movies style on is pretty much dandy porn. There’s probably a wealth of Rococo style paintings to use, but they chose this one? Anyone who's been through art history classes knows the meaning in the painting and should recognize the cameo. So why not chose a different painting?

[RPin]

Anyone who's been through art history classes knows the meaning in the painting and should recognize the cameo. So why not chose a different painting?

Maybe they didn't choose a different one because they just like that one. Maybe it speaks to them in a particular way that is not the same as it does to you or people who have been through art history classes.

Are you trying to start an art discussion?

[McDuffies]

Am I missing your point or did I understand it well that you're concerned that Disney would offer something that you think might have bad influence to children or expose them to imagery that's not for their age?
I mean, I see no reason for concern. That's imagery that was considered sexually curious more than 200 years ago? Worse things have been in cartoons ever since 40ies ago. What was scandalous then is a subject of joke nowadays. Just like exposed petticoat can be only used for comedic effect nowadays. It's probably the way people render scandalous content harmless, but the same way this image's sexual connotations can be seen only as a joke, and not as something threatening for moral. I mean, we did the period of peeking up girl's skirts back in grade school.
The only issue might be that so far, Disney tried to clear their features out of anything potentially sexual )which makes them such favoured subject for makers of online porn as well as their own employees - but they do it quite unsuccessfully on their own too). So the only issue that's interesting might be the shift in direction, but even that, I doubt.

Anyways, I read that article and it dishartens me how much accent they put on that the film will be pretty and look good. That seems like a sign that the story will be crap.

[The Neko]

Oh no! They removed every single icon that could possibly make the work even read as scandalous in the old context, and recontextualized it to the modern era where nobody knows what the fuck the original is! Now small children will see that, make the connection because they've all taken art history, go into the dirty part of their minds and become warped by the sheer sexual imagery! GOD DAMN YOU, DISNEY! DAMN YOUUUUUUU!

[RPin]

I looked at Neko's avatar and decided this thread is now about Persona 3. Discuss.

[VIIStar]

Oh no! They removed every single icon that could possibly make the work even read as scandalous in the old context, and contextualized it to the modern era where nobody knows what the original is!

Interesting, so this, for you, erases the history of the image of which the movie makers are more than aware of?

Are you trying to start an art discussion?

Discussing art in a comics forum? <i>moi?</i>

[The Neko]

You're assuming the makers either a) know or b) care what the original image MEANS. This is DISNEY. They just saw a painterly picture of a girl on a swing. That was enough for them. Doesn't matter if it was painted by Kinkaid.

[VIIStar]

You're assuming the makers either a) know or b) care what the original image MEANS. This is DISNEY. They just saw a painterly picture of a girl on a swing. That was enough for them. Doesn't matter if it was painted by Kinkaid.

O_O.. I'm fully assuming that they know of the context of the piece. I should hope that a company that bills themselves as 'family friendly' would do a spot of research before pouring millions into a film.

contextualized it to the modern era where nobody knows what the original is

So with that logic, in say, two to three hundred years we'll have children's movies based off, say, deep throat or (insert other porn title here)?

[Yeahduff]

Heh, I was gonna suggest they base it off of a Kincaid.

Nothing to see here.

Well... There is a nice painting to see.

I was talking to the torch-and-pitchfork weilding mother fuckeurs over there.

It is quite lovely.

[Mr.Bob]

So with that logic, in say, two to three hundred years we'll have children's movies based off, say, deep throat or (insert other porn title here)?

Probably. The children will need something to keep them occupied while the mums and dads Mad-Max for petrol.

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

Ewww, Rococo.